One who warrants goods to possess a certain quality is held to an extensive liability for consequential damages for breach of the warranty; perhaps on the ground that such a person should more readily foresee injurious consequences from a breach of his obligation than an ordinary contractor; perhaps because of the close relation of an action for breach of warranty to the law of torts.88
If the consequential damages thus caused are natural consequences of the breach of warranty, the plaintiff is generally allowed to recover them.84 If one sell an animal warranting it to be sound, when in fact it is infected with disease, the seller is responsible for expense incurred for medicine and medical attendance,85 and for damages resulting from a communication of the disease to the buyer's other animals, in an action on the warranty.86 And if a man sells hay or grain for the purpose of being fed to cattle and it contains a substance which poisons the buyer's cattle, the seller is responsible for the injury.87 One who sells barrels with a warranty is liable for the buyer's loss of the contents owing to defects in the barrels.88 The buyer of heating apparatus which fails to fulfill a warranty may recover for the loss caused by having the building without heat.89 One who purchases warranted machinery which owing to breach of the warranty cannot be used may recover for the loss of time and labor before the machine can be replaced.90 But the buyer of a warranted harvesting machine was not allowed to recover for injury to his grain caused by the inability to obtain another machine when the warranted machine broke.91 Delay due to failure to furnish goods as warranted92 and labor exv. Coit, 55 Ohio St. 306, 45 N. £. 034; Packard v. Slack, 32 Vt. 9.
80 See infra, Sec. 1505.
81 See Barthelemy p. Foley Elevator Co., 141 Minn. 423, 170 N. W. 513. It may be urged that in some cases the representations on which an action of deceit may be base?! would not amount to a warranty if the element of deceit were lacking. Under the broad rule defended in Wilhston on Sales, Sec.Sec. 197 et seq. (see also supra, Sec.970) this will not often be true of misrepresentations of goods sold. In any case where it is true, the allowance of the broader rule of damages in effect holds the defendant as a warrantor because of his deceit, a result not easy to support, since it involves the consequence that an alternative remedy Bhould exist in assumpsit.
82 In Morse v. Hutchins, 102 Mass. 439,440, this was stated by Mr. Justice Gray as follows: "To allow the plaintiff only the difference between the real value of the property and the price which he was induced to pay for it would be to make an advantage lawfully secured to the innocent purchaser in the original bargain inure to the wrongdoer; and, in proportion as the original price was low, would afford a protection to the party who had broken, at the expense of the party who was ready to abide by, the terms of the contract."
83 See infro, V1505.
84 British etc. Mfg. Co. v. Underground Electric, etc., Co.  A. C. 673.
In Borradaile v. Brunton, 8 Taunt.
535, a chain cable was warranted to last two yean, and on its breaking and letting go an anchor which was attached to it, the buyer was allowed to include in his damages the value of the anchor. In Dushane v, Benedict, 120 U. 8. 630, 30 L. Ed. 810, 7 Sop. Ct. 696, rags were warranted as dean which were in fact infected and caused smallpox to break out in the purchaser's mill, thereby causing expense and delay. The seller was held liable.
85 Heenan 9. Redman, 101 111. App. 608; Stearns v. Hudson, 113 Me. 154, 86 Atl. 58; Peak v. Frost, 162 Mass. 298, 38 N. E. 518; Larson v. Calder, 16 N. Dak. 248, 113 N. W. 103.
86Black 0. Elliott, 1 F. k, P. 505; Smith v. Green, 1 C. P. D. 92; Snowden 9. Waterman, 105 Ga. 384, 31 8. £. 110; Joy v. Bitser, 77 Iowa, 73, 41 N. W. 575, 3LRA. 184; McKee 9. Jones, 57 Miss. 405, 7 So. 348; Needham v. Halverson, 22 N. Dak. 594, 135 N. W. 203; Stranahan Co.
87 Wilson v. Dunville, 4 L. R. Ir. 249, 6 L. R. Ir. 210; French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132, 3 Am. Rep. 440; Coyle v. Baum, 3 Okla. 695,716, 41 Pac. 389.
88 Poland v. Miller, 95 Ind. 387, 48 Am. Rep. 730; Tatro v. Brower, 118 Mich. 615, 77 N. W. 274.
89 Tower v. Pauly, 67 Mo. App. 632; Laufer v. Boynton Furnace Co., 84 Hun, 311, 32 N. Y. S. 362; Russell v. Corning Mfg. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 610,63 N. Y. S. 640.
90 New York Mining Co. v. Fraser, 130 U. S. 611, 622, 9 S. Ct. 665, 32 L. Ed. 1031; Sinker v. Kidder, 123 Ind. 528, 24 N. E. 341; Aultman v. Stout, 15 Neb. 586, 19 N. W. 464; Erie Iron Works v. Barber, 106 Pa. St. 125, 51 Am. Rep. 508.
91 Fuller v. Curtis, 100 Ind. 237, 50 Am. Rep. 786.
92 Canton Lumber Co. v. Iiller, 107 Md. 146, 68 Atl. 500. See also North Baltimore Glass Co. v. Altpended in reasonable efforts to make warranted goods conform to the just requirement of the buyer may be recovered for.93 Injury caused by using warranted goods in manufacturing other articles is recoverable unless the buyer was negligent or unreasonable in failing to discover the defects before using the goods.94 Where seeds are bought with a warranty, the loss or diminished value of the crop may be included in damages recovered,95 though in some cases where there is a total failure of the crop to germinate, a measure of damages based on the plaintiff's outlay rather than on his probable return, has been applied.96 Where defective trees are sold, the seller, if the defect is a breach of warranty, is liable for the difference between the value of the land with such trees as were promised and with inferior trees, or no trees if the trees fail to grow.97 On the peter, 133 Wis. 112, 113 N. W. 435.
93 Adams Mach. Co. v. Castle-berry, 92 Ark. 310, 122 S. W. 998; Fox v. Stockton Harvester Works, 83 Cal. 333, 23 Pac. 295; Whitehead Machine Co. v. Ryder, 139 Mass. 366, 31 N. E. 736. Cf. Southern Gas Ac. Co. v. Peveto (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 8. W. 279.
94 Smith v. Johnson, 15 T. L. R. 179; Bagley v. Cleveland Rolling Mill, 21 Fed. 159; Nye v. Snyder, 56 Neb. 754, 77 N. W. 118; Smith *. Foote, 81 Hun, 128, 30 N. Y. S. 679; Wait v. Borne, 123 N. Y. 592, 25 N. E. 1053; Griffin v. Metal Product Co., 264 Pa. 254, 107 Atl. 713.
95 Randall v. Raper, E. B. k, E. 84; Buckbee 0. P. Hohenadel, Jr., Co., 224 Fed. 14,139 C. C. A. 478; L. R. A. 1916 C. 1001; Crutcher v. Elliott, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 592; Haycroft v. Walden, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 892; Moorhead v. Minneapolis Seed Co., 139 Minn. 11, 165 N. W. 484, L. R. A. 1918 C. 391; Graf ton-Stamps Drug Co. v. Williams, 105 Miss. 296, 62 So. 273; Cline 0. Mock, 150 Mo. App. 431, 131 S. W. 710; Wolcott 0. Mount, 36 N. J. L. 262, 13 Am. Rep. 438, 38 N. J. L. 496, 20 Am. Rep. 425; White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 118> 27 Am. Rep. 13; Landreth v. Wyeoff, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 145, 73 N. Y. S. 388; De-pew v. Peck Hardware Co., 121 N. Y. App. D. 28, 105 N. Y. S. 390, affd. 197 N. Y. 528, 90 N. E. 1158; Reiger v. Worth, 127 N. C. 230, 37 S. E. 217, 52 L. R. A. 362. But see Butler 0. Moore, 68 Ga. 780, 45 Am. Rep. 508; Hurley v. Buchi, 10 Lea, 346; Hoopes v. East, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 531; American Warehouse Co. v. Ray (Tex. Civ. App.), 150 S. W. 763. In Stewart v. Sculthorp, 25 Ont. 544, the plaintiff was not allowed recovery for damages due to impurities mixed with seed which caused noxious weeds to spring up. Cf. McMullen 0. Free, 13 Ont. 57.
96 See supra, (1341.
97 Shearer v. Park Nursery Co., 103 Cal. 415, 37 Pac. 412, 42 Am. St. Rep. 125; Long v. Pruyn, 128 Mich. 57, 87 N. W. 88, 92 Am. St. Rep. 443; Sanford 0. Brown Bros. Co., 134 N. Y. App. Div. 652,119 N. Y. S. 333. Other cases involving the recovery of consequential damages are Hodge v. Tufts, 115 Ala. 366, 22 So. 422; Alpha Checkrower Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 537,75 N. W. 369; Kester v. Miller, 119 N. C. 475, 26 S. E. 115; Aultman 0.
other hand, it has been held that damages for breach of a warranty of a wagon could not include compensation for the death of a horse which was due to a defect in the wagon.98