[Penult Para, J Blackburn's judgment:] But the second direction raises the difficulty. ♦ I think that, if from that direction the jury would understand that they were first to consider
✓ whether they were satisfied that the defendant intended to buy this parcel of oats on the terms that it was part of his contract with the plaintiff that they were old oats, ✓
so as to have the warranty of the plaintiff to that effect, they were properly told that, if that was so, the defendant could not be bound to a contract without any such warranty unless the plaintiff was misled. ♦ But I doubt whether the direction would bring to the minds of the jury the distinction between agreeing to take the oats under the belief that they were old, and agreeing to take the oats under the belief that the plaintiff contracted that they were old.
Is Definition 1.1 the right definition of warranty?
(In an insurance contract) an engagement by the insured party that certain statements are true or that certain conditions shall be fulfilled, the breach of which will invalidate the policy.