Sec 908

Aside from his liability on warranty, express or implied, a vendor may become liable in an action for injuries to parties to whom he negligently exposes articles of a character likely to produce the injuries inflicted.2

Sec 909

On the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius an express warranty, when introduced into a contract of sale, is exclusive, and leaves no room for the assumption of an implied warranty.3 sec 910. Proof is admissible of a usage in a particular trade that a particular mode of selling implies a warranty.4 But usage cannot be put in evidence to contradict the obvious meaning of the document, unless the allegation be mutual mistake, and the application be to rectify;5 nor to introduce a stipulation conflicting with the obligation the law imposes on the parties.6

Sec 911

An implied warranty that goods are merchantable does not make the vendor liable for any loss they may have sustained through depreciation in their carriage.7 It is otherwise, however, when the depreciation occurs before the arrival of the goods at a place where the vendor agreed they should be measured and transferred finally to the purchaser.8

Sec 912

A butcher in selling meat for human food warrants it to be fit for food,9 though it is otherwise with regard to animals exposed generally for sale in a Vendor may be liable for negligence.

Express warranty excludes implied.

Warranty may be implied from usage.

Warranty does not cover depreciation in transit.

Provisions sold for public market, as to which the only implied warranty is that as far as the seller knows they are not unmarketable.1 Nor does this implied warranty extend to provisions sold for merchandise which "are packed, inspected, and prepared for exportation."*

1 Hight V. Bacon, 126 Mass. 10.

2 Supra, sec 228; and see infra, sec 1043 et seq.

3 See supra, sec 220, 674.

4 Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 655; Jones V. Bowden, 4 Taunt. 847; Syers V. Jones, 2 Ex. 111; Allen V. Prink, 4 M. & W. 140; Randall V. Kehlor, 60 Me. 37; Eldredge V. Smith, 13 Allen, 140; see supra, sec 661.

5 Wh. on EV. sec 970; Brown V. Thurston, 56 Me. 127; Austen V. Sawyer, 9.

Cow. 40; Evans V. Waln, 71 Penn. St. 69; Cent. R. R. V. Anderson, 58 Ga. 393; see supra, sec 661.

6 Dickinson V. Gay, 7 Allen, 34; Boardman V. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353; Snelling V. Hall, 107 Mass. 138.

7 Bull V. Robison, 10 Ex. 342.

8 Cushman V. Holyoke, 34 Me. 289. As to defective package, see Gower V. Van Dedalzen, 3 Bing. N. C. 717.

9 Infra, sec 222.

Sec 913

If the law requires that an article before sale should be stamped in a particular way, then the article must be so stamped in order to comply with the conditions of sale;3 and if the packing is to be in a particular way, then this must be attended to by the vendor.4 The goods, also, must be susceptible of sale by the local law.5