## Facts

- Levy (defendant), a gun seller, sold a double‑barrel gun to George Langridge (the plaintiff’s father).
- The father told Levy the gun was being bought for the use of himself and his sons.
- A ticket on the gun and Levy’s shopman represented that the gun was made by “Nock,” a well‑known maker, and that it was warranted.
- In fact, Nock did not manufacture the gun.
- Evidence at trial conflicted on the gun’s quality and safety, and Levy denied that any warranty had been given.
- The plaintiff (Langridge, the son) knew of and relied on the warranty/representations when he used the gun, and alleged he would not have used it without them.
- While the plaintiff was using the gun, it burst/exploded and seriously injured him.
- The plaintiff sued Levy in an action on the case, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) and resulting injury.
- The jury found for the plaintiff on the general issue and on pleas denying the warranty and denying that the gun was unsafe.
- After the verdict, Levy challenged the legal sufficiency of the claim, arguing the plaintiff could not recover because he was not a party to the sale contract (no privity).

## Issues

1. Whether a person injured by a chattel may recover against the seller in an action on the case for deceit when the seller fraudulently warranted the chattel’s maker/quality and sold it for the use of the buyer and the buyer’s sons, even though the injured user was not in contractual privity with the seller.
2. Whether the pleaded and proven facts support tort liability for fraudulent misrepresentation causing personal injury, rather than a contract‑only warranty claim limited to the contracting buyer.

## Decision

- The Court of Exchequer held the action was maintainable and allowed the plaintiff’s verdict to stand.
- The court treated the claim as one for deceit: a false representation made with the aim that the plaintiff would use the gun, followed by reliance and injury.
- The absence of contractual privity between Levy and the injured son did not defeat the claim where the representation was fraudulently made and was intended to be acted on by the son as an expected user.

## Legal Principles

- A “mere naked falsehood” is not actionable; an action lies when a defendant makes a false representation with intent that another person act on it, the person does act on it, and damage results.
- Contract privity is not required for a deceit claim when the misrepresentation is directed to, and meant to influence, a specific third‑party user (here, the buyer’s son) whose use was contemplated at the time of sale.
- A fraudulent warranty or representation about a chattel’s safety or quality can support tort recovery for personal injury when reliance on the representation leads the plaintiff to use the item and suffer harm.
- The case supports liability grounded in intentional misrepresentation aimed at an identified user, rather than a broad rule that sellers or makers owe negligence liability to all later users.

## Conclusion

In *Levy v. Langridge* (reported at 2 Mees. & Wels. 519; 150 Eng. Rep. 863), the Court of Exchequer upheld a verdict for a son injured when a gun sold to his father for the family’s use exploded, ruling that the son could sue the seller in an action on the case for deceit because the seller’s fraudulent warranty and representations were made to induce the son’s use, were relied on, and led to the injury, even though the son was not a party to the sales contract.


Levy v. Langridge, 2 Mees. & Wels. 519, 150 Eng. Rep. 863 (1837)