Home >> Business Encyclopedia And Legal Adviser >> Spirits to The Provisions With Regard >> Warehouseman

Warehouseman

warranty, contract and particular

WAREHOUSEMAN is a person whose trade it is to keep buildings and premises in which goods may be stored. He is liable to the owner of the goods as a bailee, but not to the same extent as is a common CARRIER. In case they are injured the owner can only recover damages if and when he can prove negligence on the part of the warehouseman. A carrier will cease to hold goods as such, with the incidental liability, after he has brought them to their destination, and the owner has failed to take possession thereof within a reasonable time (Chapman v. G.W .R. ; Mitchell v . L. LS- Y. R. Co.). A warehouseman is subject to the provisions of the Shops Hours Acts [8ee HOURS OF WORK], and the Truck Acts [see TRUCK SYSTEM]. He has a LIEN (q.v.) on goods left in his custody for hire, labour, and services And see BONDED WAREHOUSE.

warranty is an express or implied statement of sonte thing which the party undertakes shall be part of a contract ; and though part of the contract, yet collateral to the express object of it. In many of the decided cases the circumstance of a party selling a particular thing by its proper description has been called a warranty, and the breach of such contract a breach of warranty. It would be better, however, to distin

guish such cases as a nou•compliance with a r,ontract which a party hap engaged to fulfil. Thus if a man contracts to sell peas to another and he sends him beans, he does not perform his contract ; but that is not a warranty. There is no warranty that he should sell him peas; the contract is to sell peas, and if he sends him anything else in their stead it is a non-performance of it. So if a man were to order copper for sheathing ships—that is a particular copper prepared in a particular manner ; if the seller sends him a different sort, in that case he does not comply with the contract ; and though this may have been considered a warranty, and may have been ranged under the class of cases relating to warranties, yet it is not properly so (Chanter v. Hopkins). For the definition of the term as set out in the SALE OF GOODS Act, see ante, p. 83, and for the provisions of the Act relating to warranties and conditions, pp. 85-6. And see HORSES.