216

THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF MANKIND. [Part III.

the purchaser is a stranger to it, and under representations in-ducing him to buy, he acts fraudulently, and violates integrity andfair dealing. The inference of fraud is easily and almost inevi-tably drawn, when there is a suppression or concealment ofmaterial circumstances, and one of the contracting parties isknowingly suffered to deal under a delusion.

So, the selling an unsound article for a sound price, knowingit to be unsound, is actionable. It is equivalent to the conceal-ment of a latent defect. The same rule applies to the casewhere a party pays money in ignorance of circumstances withwhich the receiver is acquainted, and does not disclose, andwhich, if disclosed, would have prevented the payment. Inthat case, the parties do not deal on equal terms ; and the moneyis held to be unfairly obtained, and repayment may be compelled.It applies also to the case, where a person takes a guaranty froma surety, and conceals from him facts which go to increase hisrisk, and suffers him to enter into the contract under false im-pressions. Such concealment is held to be fraud, and vitiatesthe contract.

But, if the defects in the article sold, are open equally to theobservation of both parties, the law does not require the vendorto aid and assist the observation of the vendee. Even a warran-ty will not cover defects that are plainly the objects of the senses ;though if the vendor says or does any thing whatever, with anintention to divert the eye, or obscure the observation, of thebuyer, even in relation to open defects, he will be guilty of an actof fraud. An inference of fraud may be made, not only fromdeceptive assertions and false representations, but from facts,incidents, and circumstances, which may be trivial in themselves,but decisive evidence, in the given case, of a fraudulent design.

When, however, the means of information relative to facts andcircumstances affecting the value of the commodity, are equallyaccessible to both parties, and neither of them does or says anything tending to impose on the other, the disclosure of any supe-rior knowledge which one party may have over the other, as tothose facts and circumstances, is not requisite to the validity of acontract. There is no breach of any implied confidence, thatone party will not profit by his superior knowledge, as to facts