A WARNING TO SHEEP SELLERS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1552, 7 May 1887, Page 2

A WARNING TO SHEEP SELLERS.

The case ofH. Matson and Co v M. Friedlander, which was heard m the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday,

is an instiuctive one to auctioneers and sheep dealers, as showing their mutual liabilities m respect of auction sales of sheep. It appeared from the evidence that a person owning some sheep had instructed Messrs H. Matson and Co to seil them by auction at the Ashburton saleyards. He entered them for sale as two-toothed sheep and the auctioneer sold them as such to Mr M. Friedlander. It turned out however upon examination that out of the 140 sheep sold only 80 were two-toothed, the rest being older and of inferior value. Mr Friedlander thereupon claimed an abatement m the price, which the owner of the sheep at first showed a disposition to concede; but he afterwards refused to make any reduction, and ultimately the auctioneers sued the purchaser for the full price. The auctioneers m Court successfully exonerated themselves from any wilful misrepresentation of the character of the sheep, which they had simply described to the purchaser as the sheep had been described to them ; but still the hard fact remained that Mr Friedlander having bid for and bought 140 two-tooth sheep, had got 80 sheep of that kind and 60 sheep of an inferior kind. A quantity of legal argument was used m support of the plaintiffs claim, it being urged, amongst other things, that inasmuch as the purchaser had enjoyed an opportunity of inspecting the sheep before bidding, the* doctrine of caveat emptor applied, and he must be taken to have purchased them for what they were worth \ but the Resident Magistrate decided that inasmuch as the sheep were sold as two-tooth sheep, the vendor was bound to deliver two-tooth sheep, and gave judgment m defendant's favor accordingly. We believe this decision to be m accordance with the settled law of the land, and it certainly accords with common" sense, for if a man buys sheep of one quality, and sheep of an inferior quality are delivered to him, why, if he chooses to keep the latter, should he be compelled to pay. the same price for them as for the better class of sheep ? Law or nd law, however, it would seem from the fact that so old established a firm as H. Matson and Co. deemed themselves justified m bringing this action, that neither auctioneers nor sellers fully understand the responsibilities they incur when giving specific descriptions of the sheep offered fer sale to the intending purchasers.