Fatima attended an auction sale of race horses at a well-known and respectable racing stable. Prior to the sale, Fatima, who was interested in acquiring a particular horse, examined the animal's lineage, breeding history, and veterinary records, as well as the horse itself. At the time of the sale, the horse appeared to be ill, and Fatima asked the vendor's veterinarian about its health. The veterinarian replied that she thought the horse was suffering from a cold. On the basis of this information, Fatima entered the bidding on the sale of the horse, and she was the successful bidder at a price of $9,000. The conditions of the sale were that the purchaser assumed all risks and responsibility for the horse from the instant of the sale, when the title to the animal was deemed to pass.

Fatima took the horse to her own stable and informed her veterinarian that the horse was ill with a cold. Without examining the horse, the veterinarian prescribed some medicine for it. The medicine did not appear to help the horse. It remained ill for two weeks, becoming increasingly more feeble, as the time passed. Sixteen days after the horse had been purchased, it died. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was rabies.

Fatima brought an action for a return of the purchase money paid for the horse. At the trial, expert witnesses for the plaintiff and defendant disagreed as to when the horse might have contracted the disease, but both agreed that it could possibly have had the disease at the time of the sale. Both also agreed that rabies was a disease most difficult to detect in its early stages of development. Neither the purchaser nor the vendor had any suspicion that the horse had contracted rabies, because of the rarity of the disease among horses vaccinated against it. For some reason, the horse Fatima had purchased was not vaccinated against rabies.

Identify the issues raised in this case. Indicate how it might be decided.