Horsfall v Thomas [1862]

Court: Court of Exchequer

Facts: The claimant (C) delivered a defective gun to the defendant (D). D would have rejected the gun had he examined it and discovered the defect. C sued D for the cost of the gun, and D argued that he was induced to accept it due to C’s fraudulent misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether D was induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of C to enter into the contract.

Held: The Court of Exchequer held that C’s claim was allowed, and D was liable for the cost of the gun. The court determined that D was not induced to enter into the contract by C’s fraudulent misrepresentation. The concealment of a latent defect does not constitute fraud if the purchaser had an opportunity to inspect the item and detect the defect.

Key Judicial Statements - Bramwell B: Fraud requires an assertion of something false within the knowledge of the party asserting it, or the suppression of something true that it was their duty to communicate. A manufacturer is not always obligated to point out defects that are patent and can be discovered by the purchaser.

💡 Leveluplaw: This case underscores the principle that fraud requires intentional misrepresentation or concealment of facts, not merely the failure to inspect.