Sec 219

No particular words are essential to constitute a warranty.2 Any representation made at the time of a sale is a warranty if it was understood by the parties to be such.3 But estimates of value are not warranties;4 nor are conjectural opinions or puffs.5 As will hereafter be seen more fully, an article sold which does not answer the description may be returned,1 or the vendor may be sued on the warranty;2 an article supplied to order is warranted to answer the order;3 when the vendor is specially trusted, he is liable on implied warranty of fitness;4 though it is otherwise when the purchaser buys on his own judgment.5 It will be also seen that warranty may be implied from usage;6 that warranty does not cover depreciation in transit;7 that conditions imposed by local law must be complied with;8 that on sales by sample, the article sold must conform to sample;9 that the purchaser may reject articles that do not correspond to sample;10 that average correspondence with sample is sufficient,11 and that warranty may be added to sample.12

Warranty need not be in any particular words.

1 See, to same effect, Baglehole v. Walters, 3 Camp. 154; Brown v. Edg-ington, 2 M. & G. 290; Josling v. Kingsford, 13 C. B. N. S. 447; Lyon o. Bartram, 20 How. U. S. 149; see infra, sec 549 et seq.

2 Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 613 et seq.; infra, sec 549 et seq.; Leake, 2d ed. 404; Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 57; Medina v. Stoughton, 1 Lord Ray. 593; Stucley v. Bailey, 1 H. & C. 405; Morrill v. Wallace, 9 N. H. 111; Hen-shaw v. Robins, 9 Met. 88; Warren v. Coal Co., 83 Penn. St. 437: Blythe v. Speake, 23 Tex. 430; Polhemus v. Heiman, 45 Cal. 573. That no particular words are required to consti tute an express warranty, see, in addition to the above cases, Hillman p. Wilcox, 30 Me. 170; Bryant v. Crosley, 40 Me. 18; Randall v. Thornton, 43 Me. 226; Bond v. Clark, 35 Vt. 577; Chapman v. Murch, 19 John. 290; Roberts v. Morgan, 2 Cow. 438; Whitney v. Sutton, 10 Wend. 412; Hawkins v. Pemberton, 51 N. Y. 198; Weimer v. Clement, 37 Penn. St. 147; Horn v. Buck, 48 Md. 358; Henson v. King, 3.

Jones, N. C. 419; Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384; Kenner v. Harding, 85 111. 264; Sparling v. Marks, 86 111. 125; Clark v. Ralls, 50 Iowa, 275; Jack v. R. R., 53 Iowa, 399; Robson v. Miller, 12 S. C. 580; Claghorn v. Lingo, 62 Ala. 230. " The question as to whether a statement constitutes a warranty is often a difficult one. It may depend not only upon the words used, but upon the character of the thing sold, the known character of the buyer, his opportunity for inspection, or whatever else may reveal anything in regard to the real understanding of the parties. It is a question for the jury under a proper instruction." Adams, Ch. J., McDonald Man. Co. v. Thomas, 53 Iowa, 561, citing Tewkesbury v. Bennett, 31 Iowa, 83.

3 Randall v. Thornton, 43 Me. 226; Reed v. Hastings, 61 111. 266; Robinson v. Harvey, 82 111. 58.

4 Infra, sec 260.

5 Infra, sec 259, 263; see notes to Chandeler v. Lopus, 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 7th Am. ed. 299 et seq.