in
order to guard himself against the unwelcome discovery of disease or
other defect? Clearly, _he ought to require the seller to give him a
warranty_. A proper way is, if the transaction be an important one, to
have the warranty in writing and signed by the seller. It need not be
very long; a few words usually are enough.

There is a very important difference that every one ought to
understand between words that are spoken at a sale, which are mere
representations, and words that form a warranty of the thing sold. If
I should go into a store to buy a piece of flannel, and ask the
salesman if it was all wool, and he should assure me that it was, and
I, ignorant of the quality of the material, and desirous of buying a
piece of all-wool flannel, should say to him: "I know nothing about
it; I rely entirely on your statement," and he should say: "It is all
right; all wool, and no cotton," his words would be a warranty, and if
the flannel proved to be made partly of straw or cotton, or something
besides wool, I could sue the seller on his warranty, and recover for
the loss I had suffered, whatever that might be. But suppose I were a
flannel manufacturer myself, and knew at the time he was saying this
to me that the flannel was partly cotton; in short, knew a great deal
more about it than he did, and was not deceived in any way by what he
said, his words would not be a warranty, because my action in buying
the flannel would not be influenced by them.

What test, then, is to be applied? Evidently whether or not the buyer
acts on the words spoken and is deceived by them. If, relying on them,
he buys and is deceived or misled to his loss or injury, then the
words will be taken as a warranty and protect the buyer. If, on the
other hand, he is not deceived by what is told him, and he buys on his
own knowledge and judgment, then the words are not a warranty.

One or two other points may be briefly noticed. The law says that _the
seller always warrants the title to the thing sold_--in other words,
that he is the owner. He may not say one word about the matter, but
the law implies that he is the owner and would not sell a thing that
did not belong to him. If he should prove not to be the owner, the
buyer could recover for his loss.

_Another point about adulterations._ The common law does not regard an
article as adulterated, giving the buyer the right to claim something
back, unless it has been materially changed by the foreign