View report page

37
"The Master of the Rolls said that the first point taken was that, admitting that
"the milk was the cause of the typhoid fever, upon the facts of the case there was
"no actionable wrong on the part of the defendants. The question was whether, in
"the particular circumstances, the case had been brought within Section 14.
"Sub-section 1, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. It was said that the buyer had
"not made known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods were
"required so as to show that he relied on the seller's skill or judgment. They had
"not evidence in any precise detail of the inception of the relationship between the
"plaintiff and the defendants. They began with the fact that the plaintiff was
"dealing with the defendants. The result was that milk was purchased by the
plaintiff from the defendants. That involved a contract for the supply of an
"article of food— namely, milk. The purpose for which the milk was supplied
"was obviously for consumption as an article of food. It did not require any
"evidence to prove the particular purpose for which the milk was supplied. The
"jury must be taken to have found that. Where was the condition so as to show
"that the buyer relied on the seller's skill or judgment fulfilled? If any seller
"ever did inform the mind of a buyer of his special care as a seller, as an
"inducement to the would-be buyer to deal with him, those defendants did. The
"book which had been called the pass-book, which was supplied to the plaintiff,
"was full of particulars of their skill and knowledge in the matter. It contained
"paragraphs headed 'Milk in relation to tuberculosis and other diseases'— stating
"the precautions taken to ensure that only pure milk free from all germs of
"disease and free from adulteration was supplied. One paragraph related to
"'medical inspection,' another to 'milk analysis,' another to 'veterinary
"surgeon.' The buyer could not escape being permeated with the sense that he
"was secured against the possibility of danger if he bought the defendants' milk.
"Milk, therefore, for the supply of the plaintiff and his family was tendered by a seller
"with all this knowledge and skill. It was then said that the buyer could not rely
"upon the sellers' skill or judgment in a case where no skill or judgment could
"have found out the defect. That was a contention that a person could not
"become liable for an undiscoverable latent defect. The law upon the point was
"the same now as it was at common law before the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.
"That point had been dealt with and decided by the Court of Appeal in Randall v.
"Newson (2 Q.B.D., 102), where it was held that on the sale of an article for a
"specific purpose there was a warranty by the vendor that it was reasonably fit for
"the purpose, and that there was no exception as to latent undiscoverable defects.
"Then, with regard to the alleged misdirection, it was a well-established rule that
"even if there was misdirection, still if that misdirection did not affect the result,
"of the trial, the Court would not be justified in sending the case down for a new
"trial. Mr. Macmorran complained, and he (the Master of the Rolls) must admit
"with some justice, that the learned Judge made some observations about the name
"of the defendant company, though that had nothing to do with the case; and he
"thought that it was unfortunate that the learned Judge had made those
"observations. In his (the Master of the Rolls') opinion there was not the shadow
"of a foundation for any aspersion on the defendants in connection with their
"bearing the name of the Aylesbury Dairy Company. But those observations of
"the learned Judge had no effect upon the case. He did not think that
"depreciating the use by the defendants of the name had any effect on the case,
"The circumstances of the case showed plainly the purpose for which the milk was
"sold. The circumstances spoke for themselves, and it would be a waste of time
"to ask a jury a specific question upon that particular point. With great respect
"and deference to the learned Judge, he thought that his direction to the jury was