HAWKINS V. FLETCHER 1/1925

Tes

Dy / A —s

Hawkins. ov -Fletoher.

Judgment. eee Isaacs J.

Notwithstanding the very full and earnest presentation by Mr Macrossan of the case for this appeal, I am unable to entertain any doubt that t should be dismissed.

The late and lamented Chief Justice McCawley exemined the facts with extreme thoroughness, and after giving weight to every possible con=- -sideration,arrived at jg the conclusion that the defendant, the present appellant, was liable in damages for breach of his agreement. The damages were awardad on the basis that several hundred cows . the subject of the contract,were in calf at the date of delivery. That being the basis, it becomas unnecessary to consider whether reliance can be placed upon the oral warranty, which formed an alternative ground of complaint in this case. The oral warranty may be aisregarpa, peocause the interpretation placed by McCawley C.J., upon the words

i "ary cows" in the written contract of 13 September 1923, was that thai

i expression meant "cows not in calf", and that interpretation,.in the circumstances of this case cannot be shaken. --------~-----~------

There were several objections taken to the judgment under appeal, and

Logical these may be dealt with in/order, We ee een nee nn ne ene eee nee

fa)

a

a First it was said that the words in the contract "as inspected

"hy Mr W.Walters" negatived the idea of eny warranty, and in-

j | '

dicated that Walters, the respondent's agent, bought on his {

own judgment after inspection. But the words as to inspection | in their collocation merely identify the bulk inspected, out

of which the lesser number purchased are to come, and as to

these, the words of the contract form the terms of purchase.

One of those terms ig that about 700 are sold as "ary cows".

Then it was said, that to reach an interpretation, not being