Brief of Horsfall v Thomas

Brief of Horsfall v Thomas by Legum

Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 Hurlstone and Coltman 90; 158 ER 813

Material Facts:

The claimant was contracted by the defendant to make him a gun. Upon delivery of the gun to the defendant by the claimant, the defendant failed to examine the gun and gave the claimant bills of exchange as payment. The gun later turned out to have a defect which was partly concealed by the claimant. The defendant tried to rescind the contract on grounds of misrepresentation.


1. Whether the defendant was induced to accept the gun by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the claimant?


1. The defendant was not induced to accept the gun.

Ratio Decidendi:

Since the defendant failed to examine the gun after it was delivered, he could not have been induced by the claimant to enter into the contract. That even if the claimant had concealed the defect, the concealment was irrelevant since the concealment played no role in inducing the defendant to enter the contract since he never examined the gun.