The general measure of damage for breach of warranty of quality is the difference between the value of the article actually furnished the buyer and the value the article would have had if it possessed the warranted qualities.72

Whether the action is in tort or contract is immaterial. In either form of action the buyer is seeking redress for the failure of the article to conform to the warranty, not for the injury suffered by the purchase of an article worth less than the price paid for it. Even in an action for deceit, where fraud is part of the cause of action the great weight of authority supports the same rule.73

70 Fairbanks v. Canon-Muse Lumber Co., 160 Ky. 346, 100 S. W. 731. Recovery of such expenses was allowed in Canton Lumber Co. v. Liller, 112 Md. 268, 76 Atl. 415; Merrimack Mfg. Co. v. Quintard, 107 Mass. 127. Recovery was denied in Pusey & Jones Co. v. Combined Locks Paper Co., 255 Fed. 700; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titusville Ac. Co., 71 Pa. 350; BOhneyer v. Wagner, 91 Pa. 92.

71 Echbaum p. Caldwell Bros. Co., 58 Wash. 163, 108 Pac. 434. See abo supra, Sec.Sec. 1385, 1386.

72 British Ac. Mfg. Co. p. Underground Electric, etc., Co., [1912] A. C. 623; English v. Spokane Com. Co., 57 Fed. 451, 15 U. S. App. 218, 6 C. C. A. 416; McDonald v. Kansas Oty Bolt Co., 149 Fed. 360, 365, 79C.C.A.298, 8LR.A. (N.S.) 1110; Herring p. Skaggs, 62 Ala. 180, 73 Ala. 446, 34 Am. Rep. 4; Florence v. Pat-tillo, 105 Ga. 577, 32 S. E. 642; Moore Furniture Co. v. Sloane, 166 111. 457, 46 N. E 1128, 64 111. App. 581; Elwood v. Harting, 21 Ind. App. 408, 52 N. . till; Alpha Checkrower Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 537, 75 K. W. 369; Davidson Bros. Co. p. Smith, 143 la, 124, 121 K. W. 503; Loomis Milling Co. v. Vswter, 8 Kans. App. 437, 57 Pac. 43; Sharper Bettfe, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 673,32

S. W. 395; Ponce 0. Smith, 84 Me. 266, 24 Atl. 854; Central Trust Co. v. Arctic Ice Machine Co., 77 Md. 202, 238,26 Atl. 493; White Automobile Co. v. Dorsey, 119 Md. 251, 86 Atl. 617; Noble v. Fagnant, 162 Mass. 275, 38 N. E. 507; Maxted v. Fowler, 94 Mich. 106, 53 N. W. 921; Hansen v. Gaar, 63 Minn. 94, 65 N. W. 254; Miamisburg Twine & Cordage Co. v. Wohlhuter, 71 Minn. 484, 74 N. W. 175; Skoog v. Mayer Bros. Co., 122 Minn. 209, 142 N. W. 193; MoCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Heath, 65 Mo. App. 461; Hogan 0. Shuart, 11 Mont. 498, 28 Pac. 969; Burr v. Redhead, 52 Neb. 617, 621, 72 N. W. 1058; Sherrill v. Coad, 92 Neb. 406, 138 N. W. 567; Hooper v. Story, 155 N. Y. 171, 49 N. E. 773; Huyett A Smith Co. v. Gray, 124 N. C. 322, 32 S. E. 718; Aultman p. Ginn, 1 N. Dak. 402, 48 N. W. 336; Himes v. Kiehl, 154 Pa. St. 190, 25 Atl. 632; Western Twine Co. v. Wright, 11 S. Dak. 521, 78 N. W. 942, 44 L. R. A. 438; Danner v. Fort Worth Implement Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 45 S. W. 856; Jacot p. Grossman, etc., Co., 115 Va. 90, 78 S. E. 646; Case Plow Works v. Niles A Scott Co., 90 Wis. 590, 63 N. W. 1013; Parry Mfg. Co. v. Tobin, 106 Wis. 286, 82 N. W. 154.

Under this rule the fact that a defrauded buyer resold the goods at a profit will not deprive him of a right to substantial damages.74 So the buyer's damages for breach of warranty are not lessened because he has resold the goods at an enhanced price.75 Had the goods, been as warranted, they might have been resold at a still higher price. The same principle has been applied to the case of a defrauded seller. He has been held entitled to be put in the position he would have occupied had the representations been true; and so has been allowed to recover from one who fraudulently induced him to sell goods to an insolvent corporation the full price promised even though this includes a profit.76

73 In the following cases the rule was applied to sales of personal property: Mayer v. Dyer, 57 Ark. 441, 21 S. W. 1064; Boddy p. Henry, 113 Iowa, 462, 85 N. W. 771, 53 L. R. A. 700; Gustaf-son v. Rustemeyer, 70 Conn. 125, 39 AtL 104, 39 L. R. A. 644, 66 Am. St. Rep. 92; Williams v. MoFadden, 23 Fla. 143, 1 So. 618, 11 Am. St Rep. 345; Antle k Bro. v. Sexton, 137 111. 410, 27 N. . 691; Van Velsor v. See-berger, 59 111. App. 322; Smith v. Hunt, 50 Ind. App. 592, 98 N. . 841; Drake v. Holbrook, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1941, 66 S. W. 512; Nash v. Insurance & Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 40 N. E. 1039, 28 L. R. A. 753; Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 51 N. . 1084, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262; Bank of Atchison v. Byers, 139 Mo. 627,659,41S. W. 325; Sherrill v. Coad, 92 Neb. 406, 138 N. W. 567; Noyes 9. Blodgett* 58 N. H. 502; Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480, 491; Smith v. Appleton, 155 N. Y. Misc. 520, 140 N. Y. S. 565; Lunn v. Sher-mer, 93 N. C. 164; Robertson v. Haiton, 156 N. Car. 215, 72 S. . 316; 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298; Elder 9. Shoffstall, 90 Ohio, 265,107 N. . 599; Potter v. Neeedah Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 25, 30, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118. The same principle was applied to sales of land in Matlock v. Reppy, 47 Ark. 148, 14 S. W. 546; Nysewander v. Lowman, 124 Ind. 584, 24 N. E. 355; Speed v. Hollinsworth, 54 Kans. 436, 38 Pac 496; Wright v. Roach, 57

Me. 600; Adams p. Burton, 107 Me. 223, 77 Atl. 835; Stone 9. Pentecost, 210 Mass. 223, 96 N. E. 335; Estell v. Myera, 56 Mist. 800; Caldwell v. Henry, 76 Mo. 254, 257; Page v. Parker, 43 N. H. 363, 80 Am. Dec. 172; Pryor t. Foster, 130 N. Y. 171, 29 N. E. 123; Fargo Gas & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas & Electric Co., 4 N. Dak. 219, 59 N. W. 1066, 37 L. R. A. 593; Linerode v. RasmuBsen, 63 Ohio St. 545, 59 N. E. 220; Beasley v. Swinton, 46 S. C. 426, 24 S. E. 313; Augur v. Smith, 90 Tenn. 729, 18 S. W. 398; Hecht v. Metzler, 14 Utah, 408, 48 Pac. 37, 60 Am. St. Rep. 906; Shanks v. Whitney, 66 Vt. 405,29 Atl. 367.

74 Clark v. Morgan County Nat. Bank, 196 Fed. 709. See also the following oases where the buyer resold without loss, and was allowed substantial damages: Johnson v. Gavitt, 114 la. 183, 86 N. W. 256 (land); Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246, 39 Am. Dec. 726 (land); Lunn v. Shermer, 93 N. C. 164.

75 Union Selling Co. ». Jones, 128 Fed. 672, 63 C. C. A. 224; Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett, 119 Ga. 489, 46 S. E. 657; Wheelock v. Berkeley, 138 HI. 153, 27 N. E. 942; Brown v. Bigelow, 10 Allen, 242; Neil v. Cunningham S. Co., 160 Mo. App. 513, 140 S. W. 947; Miamisburg Ac. Co. o. Wohlhuter, 71 Minn. 484, 74 N. W. 175; Modatchey v. Anderson, 84 Neb. 783, 122 N. W. 67; Ellison v. Johnson,