This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
The rule that disclosure is not necessary except in special cases is modified greatly in its practical operation by the doctrine of implied warranties. In contracts of sale the vendor is, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, assumed to warrant by im-
14 Barrett v. Lewiston, Brunswick & Bath Street Ry. Co., 110 Me. 24, 85 Atl. 306.
1 England. Traill v. Baring, 4 De G. J. & S. 318.
United States. Piedmont & Arlington Life Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U. S. 377, 23 L. ed. 610; Loewer v. Harris, 57 Fed. 368.
Indiana. Guilford School Township v. Roberto, 28 Ind. App. 355, 62 N. E. 711.
Iowa. Noble v. Renner, 177 la. 509, 159 N. W. 214.
Michigan. Mooney v. Davis, 76 Mich. 188, 13 Am. St. Rep. 425, 42 N. W. 802.
2 Loewer v. Harris, 57 Fed. 368; Mooney v. Davis, 75 Mich. 188, 13 Am. St. Rep. 425, 42 N. W. 802.
3Dant v. Head, 90 Ky. 255, 29 Am. St. Rep. 369, 13 S. W. 1073.
4 Thompson v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 13 N. D. 444, 101 N. W. 900.
5 Noble v. Renner, 177 la. 509, 159 N. W. 214.
6Loewer v. Harris, 67 Fed. 368; Mooney v. Davis, 75 Mich. 188, 13 Am. St. Rep. 425, 42 N. W. 802; Porter v. Beattie, 88 Wis. 22, 59 N. W. 499.
7Burchinell v. Hirsh, 5 Colo. App. 500, 39 Pac. 352.
8Cortland Mfg. Co. v. Piatt, 83 Mich. 419, 47 N. W. 330. (The original statement was made to a commercial agency, and the party making it did not know that the adversary relied thereon.) plication the existence of the thing sold,1 and his title thereto if the property is in his possession.2
1 Meyer v. Richards, 163 U. S. 385, 41 L. ed. 199; Marshall v. Peck, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 609; J. G. Shaw Blank Book Co. v. Maybell, 86 Minn. 241, 90 N. W. 392; Flandrow v. Hammond, 148 N. Y. 129, 42 N. E. 511; Wait v. Williams, 107 S. Car. 32, 91 S. E. 969.
In a sale of commercial paper, that it is genuine. Brown v. Ames, 59 Minn. 476, 61 N. W. 448.
In a sale of bonds, that they are valid existing obligations. Meyer v. Richards, 163 U. S. 385, 41 L. ed. 199.
In case of a sale of a note and mortgage without recourse, the note and mortgage are valid and in force; and the mortgage is an encumbrance on the property described therein. Wait v. Williams, 107 S. Car. 32, 91 S. E. 969.
Contra, Richardson v. Marshall County, 100 Tenn. 346, 45 S. W. 440 (where the implied warranty was held to cover genuineness, but not authority in the county to issue the bonds); Ruohs v. Bank, 94 Tenn. 57, 28 S. W. 303.
For the general subject of warranties in the law of sales, see Implied Warranties in Sales, by Emlin Mc-Clain, 7 Harvard Law Review 213; Warranties and Similar Agreements, by Edward F. McClennen, 11 Harvard Law Review 315; What Constitutes an Express Warranty in the Law of Sales, by Samuel Williston, 21 Harvard Law Review 555; Representation and Warranty in Sales, Heilbut v. Buckleton, by Samuel Williston, 27 Harvard Law Review 1; Conditions and Warranties in the Sale of Goods, by Francis M. Burdick, 1 Columbia Law Review 71; The Law of Sales in the United States, by Richard Brown, 8 Columbia Law Review 82; Warranty in the English Law of Sale, by Richard Brown, 15 Juridical Review 50, 16 Juridical Review 406; Studies in the Law of Sale, by A. Hindenburg, 16 Juridical Review 30; Representation of Warranty, by J. Campbell Lorimer, 26 Juridical Review 97; Law of Sales - Warranty and Fraud, 2 American Law Review 636; Implied Warranties on Sales, by Thomas W. Peirce, 15 American Law Review 656; Implied Warranty of Fitness of a Chattel-, by Charles A. Buck-nam, 17 American Law Review 423; Warranties and Conditions in Sales, by Charles M. Barnes, 20 American Law Review 649; Express Warranties in Sales of Personal Property in the United States and Canada, by Arthur Biddle, 22 American Law Register (N.S.) 553; Warranties Implied in Sales of Personal Property in the United States and Canada, by Arthur Biddle, 22 American Law Register (N.S.) 85, 153, 225.
2England. Medina v. Stoughton, 1 Salk. 210.
Alabama. Corry v. Sytoia y Cia, 192 Ala. 550, 68 So. 891.
California. Kriess v. Faron, 118 Cal. 142, 50 Ac. 388.
Georgia. Vance v. McBurnett, 94 Ga. 251, 21 S. E. 520.
Illinois. Morris v. Thompson, 85 111. 16.
Kentucky. Payne v. Rodden, 7 Ky. (4 Bibb.) 304, 7 Am. Dec. 739.
Massachusetts. Brown v. Pierce, 97 Mass. 46, 93 Am. Dec. 57.
Michigan. Croly v. Pollard, 71 Mich. 612, 39 N. W. 853.
If food is sold for consumption, there is an implied warranty that it is fit for food,3 although it is to pass through the hands of a middleman,4 at least if the seller selects the articles of food which he sells.5 If oats are sold to one who intends to feed them to his horses, there is an implied warranty that they are reasonably fit for such purpose.6 If food is sold at wholesale for purposes of resale; there is no implied warranty that it is reasonably fit for food.7 Thus no implied warranty exists where animals or other kinds of food are sold to a butcher,8 or to a retailer,9 or to a jobber.10 If the quality of food is regulated by statute, there is an implied warranty that the food conforms to the statutory requiremerits.11 If drugs are sold for consumption, there is an implied warranty that they are reasonably fit for the use for which such drugs are adapted.12
Oklahoma. Clevenger v. Lewis, 20 Okla. 837, 16 L. R. A. (N:S.) 410, 95 Pac. 230.
Tennessee. Richardson v. Marshall County, 100 Tenn. 346, 45 S. W. 440.
West Virginia. Jarrett v. Goodnow, 39 W. Va. 602, 20 S. E. 575; Cogar v. Lumber Co., 46 W. Va. 256, 33 S. E. 219.
3Arkansas. Nelson v. Armour Packing Co., 76 Ark. 352, 90 S. W. 288.