[ie case of first impression or unprecedented] because there was no duty imposed on the Defendant as on carriers or other bailees under an implied contract. But Tindal, C.J., said that, though that may be so, yet: "there is a rule of law which says you must enjoy your own property as not to injure that of another (at p. 474). LANGRIDGE V. LEVY (1837) 2M & W 519 was another milestone. It was decided on April 21, 1837 [NB VAUGHAN was decided on Jan 23, 1837), and somewhat paradoxically was not a decision on negligence: The seller of a defective gun which he had falsely and knowingly warranted to be sound, was held liable to the plaintiff who was injured by its bursting, although it was plaintiff's father to whom the gun had been sold, but who had acquainted the seller with the fact that he intended his sons to use it. The Defendant, representing falsely that the gun had been made by NOLK and was "a good safe and secure gun".
110 The trial judge left to the jury the questions whether there was a warranty, whether the gun was safe and whether the Defendant warranted it to be safe, knowing that it was not. Verdict was entered for the Plaintiff for £ 400. PARKE, B in delivering the considered judgment of the court in favour of the Plaintiff, based the decision on the ground of tortious deceit, the damage, moreover, not being too remote . He declined to accept the broad principle as to duty for which the Plaintiff's counsel had contended: "If the instrument in question, which is not of itself
