Reply
Wed 19 Dec, 2012 02:56 pm
Mr. Jamal is a trainee-jockey. After a bad fall, he decides to sell his racehorse
Kaplan. Ms. Raza offers to buy Kaplan for her younger sister, Ms. Khawaja, who is
learning to ride a horse. Mr. Jamal reassures Ms. Raza that Kaplan is a very mild
horse, is calm in all situations, and is a good horse for learning how to ride. He
forgets to mention an incident when Kaplan had been frightened by a trespassing
cat, since the incident had occurred many years earlier. He also tells Ms. Raza that
Kaplan has an excellent parentage – specifically that Kaplan’s father was a famous
horse and therefore Kaplan is worth Rs. 200,000.
Ms. Raza makes a counter-offer to buy Kaplan for Rs. 175,000, and Mr. Jamal
accepts the same. The contract is concluded and Ms. Raza takes ownership and
possession of Kaplan. Two days later, Ms. Khawaja is thrown off Kaplan when the
horse rears up on seeing a cat nearby. Ms. Khawaja is severely injured and Ms.
Raza is faced with enormous medical bills. Ms. Raza has now also found out that
Kaplan actually had a different parentage and was worth only Rs. 40,000.
Advise Ms. Raza of any claim she may have against Mr. Jamal.
@vonger,
"Ms. Raza has now also found out that
Kaplan actually had a different parentage and was worth only Rs. 40,000. '
This is the only knowable fraud that I see.
There was no way that the fear of cats could be known by just one incident.
@vonger,
There's fraud re the value of the animal; looks like an offer was made based upon fraud, and consideration was paid based on said fraud. The throwing is a negligence issue - in a Contracts class, they won't care about the tort, I don't think.
@jespah,
But, as Roger pointed it out, Caveat Emptor can apply here.
@vonger,
In addition to misrepresenting the horse's pedigree, Jamal may also be liable for consequential damages under the theory of
Hadley v. Baxendale, as both parties contemplated that the horse would be used in training an unskilled rider. Also, Jamal's assurances regarding the horse's even temper may have amounted to a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, which he breached by selling a horse that did not fit the warranted condition.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace