Turning to the other question, I think that the warranty would not be exhausted at the time the attempt was made to use the bull, that is, after a period of five months had elapsed from the time of the sale. According to the testimony given on behalf of the appellant, it was necessary that a certain time should elapse before it could be used for breeding, because the animal when purchased was in a condition required for show purposes but not for breeding purposes. Furthermore, the bull was not used at an earlier time because it was the custom on the appellant’s farm not to breed cows until the month of April. It seems to me that these grounds are of weight and are reasonable in explaining why the aforesaid time elapsed. That the lapse of a certain period of time after a sale may be considered reasonable in view of the surrounding circumstances, and would not negative a warranty given with respect to the sale of a horse warranted for breeding purposes, is shown in the case of Natrass v. Nightingale, supra, where the delivery of the horse to the purchaser was in August and the horse was not used for breeding till the following spring.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.