Gifford v. . Betts

Dick, J.

The plaintiff purchased, and paid for, three hundred and forty-five barrels of flora, which were to be de-lived to him by the defendant, at Charlotte. At the time of the sale the defendant expressly “ stipulated that the whole of the flour should be of the quality known to merchants as extra, and superfine.” This stipulation amounted to an express warranty of the quality of the flour. The whole quantity reached Charlotte in due time, but upon in spection, sixty-six barrels proved to be of inferior quality. The plaintiff might have brought an action at once, founded upon this breach of warranty, without an offer to return the goods to the defendant, or giving him notice of his breach of warranty. Chit, on Con. 458; 2 Saund. Pl. & Ev. 916.

The plaintiff, however, preferred to notify the defendant immediately that the inferior flour was not accepted in discharge of the contract. As the defendant declined to remove the goods which were not of the quality warranted, and pay back the purchase money, the plaintiff had a right to sell them in a reasonable time, and recover from the defendant on the special contract, the loss upon the re-sale, and all proper expenses, so as frilly to reimburse himself for money expended, but not for the loss of a good bargain. 1 Pars. Cont. 475.

Per Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.