Is a car reasonably fit to go from place to place wherever you may try to do so?

In the case at bar, however, the car is not reasonably fit to go from place to place wherever you may try to do so; It is not that the car was put to some work for which it is unfitted, but it is not reasonably fit for any work that this class of car should ordinarily do. It was used for the ordinary purposes for which a car of this class is used, and it is not reasonably fit for that work. Hence, in my opinion, it comes within Preist v. Last, supra. In that case, Collins, M.R., at p. 660, thus states the facts and his conclusions: A draper, who was not skilled in the matter of hot-water bottles, went to the shop of a chemist, whose business it was to sell hot-water bottles, and asked for a hot-water bottle, and an article was sold to him as a hot-water bottle. It seems to me that a contract was thereby made for the seller to supply the buyer with a bottle reasonably fit and capable of being used for the particular purpose for which a hot-water bottle is ordinarily used—that is, a bottle capable of holding hot-water in circumstances in which hot-water bottles are ordinarily used, including that of being applied to the human body to give relief from pain. There was, therefore, it seems to me, in this case a purchase of a particular chattel for a particular purpose in circumstances which showed that the buyer relied on the seller’s skill or judgment. That is always, I think, an inference of fact depending on all the circumstances of the case, and all the facts must be looked at in conjunction in order to determine this question.