Or there may be a qualified warranty, as where the seller says: '"The horse is sound to the best of my belief". In this case, if the horse is not sound, the buyer must be prepared to prove, not only that the horse was unsound at the time of sale, but that the seller knew of such unsoundness.

A statement " that the buyer might depend upon it that the horse was perfectly quiet and free from vice" has been held to be a warranty (Cave v. Colman, 3 Man and R. 2, 1828).

Another kind of warranty is that known as a limited warranty, where any objections a buyer may have to make must be made within a stated time, or the horse must be retained with all faults.

This is a kind of warranty commonly employed at public sales and repositories. For instance, horses sold by Messrs. Tattersall at Albert Gate, at their Monday sales, "not answering the description, must be returned before five o'clock on Wednesday evening next; otherwise the purchaser shall be obliged to keep the lot with all faults" (Revised catalogue, March 16th, 1896).

In the case of Head v. Tattersall (L.R. 7, Ex. 7, 1871), where the above condition was discussed, two important points were decided. There, before the horse was removed, the buyer was told by the groom in charge of such horse that the warranty given with it was wrong, and it was contended that the buyer in removing the horse after such notice had waived his right under the warranty. The court, however, held that the statement of the groom was not equivalent to a notice by the defendants that the warranty was incorrect. The other point argued was whether the fact that the horse received some injury while in the custody of the buyer deprived the latter of his right to return it. On this point Baron Bramwell remarked: "It is quite true as a general proposition that a buyer cannot return a specific chattel except it be in the same state as when it was bought; but in such a case as the present the rule must be qualified thus: the buyer must return the horse in the same condition as when he bought it, but subject to any of those incidents to which the horse might be liable, either from its inherent nature or from the course of the exercise by the buyer of those rights over it which the contract gave. For example, suppose the horse when standing in the stable strained itself or injured a limb, that would not affect the right of return, although the horse would no longer be in exactly the same condition as before."

Further, if a horse be sold at a repository where a public notice is fixed up that warranties given there are subject to such notice, the buyer is bound by such notice, though it is not particularly referred to at the time of sale (Bywater v. Richardson, 1834) I. a v. E. 508. In Chapman v. Gwyther it was held (I. L.R.Q.B., 463) that when the horse was unsound at the time of sale, but complaint of unsoundness was to be made within a month, and such unsoundness was not discovered within a month of the sale, the buyer was without remedy.