Sale Of Goods Act,1930

Que.1
A agrees to sell a horse to B on a condition that B will keep it for 6 days on Trial Basis and have the
option to return on the expiry of 6 days, if he does not find it suitable. 3 days after entering into
contract, Horse died without any fault of A or B. Whether contract will be valid or void?
Ans.1
Provision of law:
As per Section 24 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, When goods are Sold on Sale or Return Basis, Property
in goods passes to Buyer when buyer approves/accepts goods by;
1) Express intimation to seller,,
2) Behavior of buyer indicates his approval of goods.
3) Buyer without sending notice of rejection keeps the goods with him beyond a specified time
or reasonable time.
Also as per Section 8 of Sale of Goods Act, 1030, when there is a contract for sale of Specific goods
and such goods destroy before passing property in goods to buyer without any fault of buyer or
seller, the contract becomes Void.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, A sold to B a horse on sale or return basis for 6 days, however, horse died on
3rd day without any fault of A or B. it indicates destruction of specific goods before passing property
to buyer.
Conclusion:
Considering above Legal provisions and explanation, it is concluded that the contract between A and
B is void as the horse died before the property was passed.
Que.2
P agrees to sell apples to Q at price to be fixed by R. Subsequently, R refuses to value the goods
andfix the price. Whether agreement be valid or void? What will be consequences if R was willing
to value the apples but he was prevented from evaluating by wrongful act of P?
Ans.2
Provision:
As per Section 10 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, When there is an agreement to sell goods on terms
that price to be fixed by valuation by third party and such third party does not or can not fix the
price, the agreement becomes void. Provided, that if the goods or part of goods were delivered and
appropriated to buyer, he shall pay Reasonable price to seller.
Where the third party is prevented from making valuation by wrongful act of buyer or seller, the
aggrieved party may claim damages from defaulting party.
Fact of the Case
 In the given question, P agreed to sell apples to Q at a price to be fixed by R (a third party) however,
R could not fix the price.
Conclusion:
Accordingly the contract becomes void as R could not fix the price and Property was not passed to
Buyer.
However, if R was prevented from making valuation by wrongful act of P, Q may claim damages from
P for breach of contract.
Que.3
X sold to Y certain quantities of “foreign refined Oil” warranted equal to sample. The sample
consisted of “foreign refined Oil mixed with Hemp Oil”. The oil was matching with quality of
samplebut not as known in market to be “foreign refined Oil”. Can Y reject goods?
Ans.3
Provision:
As per Section 15 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, when the goods are sold by sample as well as by
description, there is an implied condition that bulk of goods must correspond with Sample as well as
description. If the goods are matching with quality of sample but not according to description given,
or vice versa or both, the buyer may repudiate (cancel) the contract.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, X sold to Y “Foreign Refined Oil” warranted equal to sample, it indicates sale
by sample as well as description. And the goods are matching with quality of sample but do not tally
with description given as it is “foreign refined oil mix with hemp oil”
Conclusion:
Considering above legal provisions and explanations, Y can reject goods by repudiating contract as the
goods matched with sample but did not match with description.
Que.4
K bought a Necklace from a famous Jeweler L at high price thinking it to be of Natural pearl. In fact,
the necklace was of synthetic pearl (of which K was unaware but L was well aware). Whether K can
cancel the contract?
Ans.
Provision:
As per Doctrine of Caveat Emptor, Buyer needs to be aware while he is selecting the goods. Buyer
needs to make sure that goods are suitable for his purpose. If he is not careful then for wrong / bad
selection of goods by buyer, seller cannot be made responsible.Seller is not under a duty to disclose
defects in goods
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, K bought a necklace at high price thinking it to be of natural pearl in fact it
was of synthetic pearl, but it is wrong selection of goods by buyer, where seller is never
responsible.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions, buyer cannot repudiate the contract as he himself is responsible for
wrong selection of goods because he did not disclose the fact that he was purchasing thinking it
was Natural Pearls.
Que.5
N sold whole quantity of oil in his godown. The oil is to be put into casks by seller and then to be
taken away by buyer. Some casks were filled in the presence of the buyer, but before they were
removed or any other can be filled, the godown was caught by fire and whole quantity of oil was
destroyed. Who would bear the loss?
 Ans.
Provision:
As per Section 21 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, when there a contract for Sale of specific goods which
are not in a deliverable state, property in goods passes to buyer when;
1) seller puts the goods in deliverable state and
2) buyer is communicated about deliverable state of goods.
As per Section 26, Risk follows ownership. It means, the risk of loss of goods is borne by the party
who has ownership of goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, N sold whole quantity of goods to Buyer but the goods were to be put into
casks by seller it indicates sale of specific goods to be put in deliverable state. Some casks were filled
in presence of buyer so its property has been passed to buyer. While remaining is still to be filled so
its property has not been passed to buyer.
Conclusion:
As the whole quantity of oil has been destroyed by fire, the loss of packed goods whose property
passed to buyer, will be borne by buyer and remaining loss will be borne by seller.
Que.6
X given a Car to Y (his mercantile Agent ) stating that the car should not be sold below Rs. 50 0000
to anyone. Y agreed for the same, but later on he sold the car to Z at Rs.400000 ( who bought it in
good faith) and Y absconded with money. Whether X can recover Car from Z?
Ans.
Provision:
As per Proviso to Section 27 of Sale of goods Act 1930, A Sale made by Mercantile agent to buyer will
pass good title to buyer in following circumstances;
1) agent was in possession of goods with consent of owner,
2) the sale was made by agent acting in ordinary course of business and
3) buyer bought goods in good faith, without having any notice about no authority of seller to
sell goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, Y agent of X, sold car to Z (below Rs.500000, instead of instruction by X non to
sell below Rs.500000) who bought the goods in good faith, the sale is treated as valid.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions, X cannot recover Car from Z as Z has got good title over goods because
he Purchased from an agent and that too without knowledge of restriction on Agent’s authority.
Que.7
P sold certain goods to Q to be paid immediately. P sold the goods through railway sending Railway
receipt to Q. Q became Insolvent while the goods are in transit. He assigns the Railway receipt to R,
who does not know that Q is insolvent. P being Unpaid seller, want to exercise right of stoppage in
transit. Advise whether P can stop goods in transit?
Would your answer change if R was aware about Q’s insolvency before assignment of railway
receipt?
Ans. Provision:
 As per Section 53 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, Unpaid seller’s Right of Lien or Stoppage in transit is not
affected by Buyer selling or pledging goods to another person. It means, Unpaid seller may exercise
Right of Lien or Stoppage in transit even if buyer resold or pledged goods to another person.
However, the right of lien or Stoppage in transit is Lost in following exceptional situations;
1) where the seller has assented to buyer for re-sell or pledge of goods,
2) where another buyer bought goods in good faith and obtained document of
title in hisname.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, as R was unaware about Q’s insolvency at time of assignment of Railway
Receipt, it can be said that R bought in good faith and also he has obtained Document of title,
Conclusion:
In case R was not aware about Q’s insolvency then P will not have any right to stop goods in transit.
However, if R was aware about Q’s insolvency at time of assignment of railway receipt, it is indicated
that R did not acquire in good faith. So P can stop goods in transit as his rights remains unaffected.
Que.8
A made a bid at auction for old car. But before fall of hammer, A withdrew his bid. Still the
auctioneer continued with bid and compelled him to buy goods, as there was a pre-condition in
auction that “bid once made shall not be withdrawn”. Whether A can be compelled to buy goods?
Ans.
Provision:
As per Section 64 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, Auction sale completed when auctioneer announce its
completion by fall of hammer or any other manner, however, bidder may retract (withdraw) his bid
before announcement of sale by auctioneer.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, A had withdrawn his bid before fall of hammer by auctioneer which is his rightas
per rules of Auction.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, auctioneer cannot compel him to buy goods as it is
permitted under the Act even if there was a pre-condition in auction that the bid made once will not be
able to be withdrawn.
Que.9
State whether the following is a ‘Sale’ or an ‘agreement to sell’ :
(a) X agrees to buy from Y a hay - stack on Y's land, with the liberty to come to Y's land to
take itaway.
(b) X agrees to buy 1,000 litres of coconut oil from Y's cistern. Y has many cisterns with more
than1,000 litres in them.
Ans :
Provision:
As per Section 4(3) of Sale of goods Act 1930, “Where under a contract of sale, property in goods is
transferred from seller to buyer, the contract is called a Sale” But “Where the property in goods is to
take place at some future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is
called Agreement to sell”
Fact of the Case and conclusion:
In situation (a) Y has given full liberty to X to come to his land to take Hay stack at any time, it
indicates passing of property to X immediately, so it is Sale.
In situation (b) Y has many cisterns with more than 1000 litres of oil out of which 1000 litre oil is to
be bought by X but goods have not been identified specifically, it indicates the contract of sale of
Unascertained goods. So it is Agreement to Sell.
Q.10
A bought a motor car from B. He used it for 3 months and thereafter the car was detected to have
been stolen. A was compelled to return it to the true owner. Could A recover the sale price from
B?
Ans :
Provision:
 This question relates to the concept of Implied Condition as to title. There is an Implied Condition in
case of sale of goods that Seller must have the ownership of goods or he must have the authority to
sell the goods on behalf of owner that means he must have authority to pass the title of owner to
buyer if the seller cannot pass the title of owner to buyer then in breach of condition Buyer may
either repudiate contract or claim damages or both.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, B sold a car to A which was stolen by him, it indicates that seller had no right
to sell the car (No title to goods)
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that Mr.B sold the car to Mr.A
but he could not pass the title of owner to Mr.A and therefore Mr.A can repudiate contract and can
claim refund.
Q.11
M at Calcutta sold to N 20 bags of waste ‘silk’ then on their way from Murshidabad to Calcutta.
But when the bags reached N, he found that they contained waste silk no doubt but not of the
quality he had in view. Would N be entitled to reject the goods ?
Provision:
As per section 15 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, when there is a contract of sale by description, there is
implied condition that goods shall correspond with description. However, as per Doctrine of Caveat
Emptor, the buyer is responsible for selection of goods which as per his required quality and fitness.
If the goods correspond with description but not of quality as the buyer had in mind then he cannot
blame seller.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, N bought “Waste Silk” from M. When goods reached it found to be Waste Silk.
i.e. it was as per description given in contract of sale. However buyer wish to reject goods on basis of
quality as they did not match with his imagined quality.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that N Is not entitled to reject
goods based on doctrine of Caveat Emptor.
Que.12
A contracts to sell Java Sugar according to the sample produced by him on the delivery of the
sample to B, the buyer. It transpires that the sugar matches with sample but is not Java Sugar.
Will Bbe entitled to any remedies?
Ans :
Provision:
As per Section 15 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, when the goods are sold by sample as well as by
description, there is an implied condition that bulk of goods must correspond with Sample as well as
description. If the goods are matching with quality of sample but not according to description given,or
vice versa or both, the buyer may repudiate (cancel) the contract.
Fact of the Case:

In the given question A sold Java sugar to B equal to sample shown to him, so sugar must be as per
sample as well as it should be java sugar (description) However, sugar match with sample but was
not Java sugar. Which indicates that goods do not match with description.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that B will be entitled to reject
the goods and claim damages.
Que.13
X enters into a druggist's shop and asked for a hot water bottle. He is shown a bottle which the
proprietor of the shop say will not stand boiling water, but it is meant for hot water.
X buys the bottle, and one day while using it, it bursts and injures X. It is proved that the bottle
wasnot fit for use as a hot water bottle. Is the seller liable to damages for breach of warranty?
Ans :
Provision:
 As per Section 16(1) of Sale of Goods Act 1930, ordinarily there is no implied condition as to Quality
or fitness for buyer’s purpose. However, the condition as to reasonable fitness of goods for
particular purpose may be implied if it is made known to seller.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, X asked for hot water bottle from Druggist which druggist sold to X saying it
will stand hot water. However, the bottle burst while using it instead of using hot water into it.
Accordingly it shows that seller has provided goods which are not suitable for the purpose.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that Seller is liable for damages
due to injury to buyer as the goods were not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased.
Que.14
There was a sale by sample on the 5th May, of two parcels of rice containing 500 and 100 bushels
respectively. When, on the 12th May, the buyer went to examine the bulk, the parcel containing
500 bushels was shown to him but the seller refused to show him the other parcel which was not
then inthe godown. On this account the buyer rescinded the whole contract. Could he do so?
Ans :
Provision:
As per Sale of Goods Act if the goods are purchased by way of Sample then there is an implied
condition that Goods must correspond with sample and buyer must be given an opportunity to
match the bulk with sample.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, there was a contract to sell two parcels containing 500 and 100 bushels by a
single transaction and buyer was given an opportunity to examine the parcel of 500 bushels but not of
100 bushels.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, buyer is entitled to reject the whole lot as there was a
single transaction and buyer was not given opportunity to check the 100 bushels.
Que.15
X contracts to sell a stack of hay to Y, to weigh and deliver it at `100 per tonne. A part of it was
weighed and taken away but before anything more could be done a flood carried away the
remainder. On whom will the loss as regards the reminder fall ?
Ans :
Provision:
As per section 22 of Sale of goods act 1930, when there is a contract for sale of specific goods in
deliverable state but seller has to weigh, test, measure or do something with reference to goods for
ascertainment of price, property in goods passes only when such thing is done and buyer has notice
of it.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, X agrees to sell to Y a stack of hay to be weighted and delivered to Y at Rs.100
per ton. However, some of goods were weighted and delivered to Y but remaining goods were
destroyed by flood before remaining could be weighted or delivered. So it indicates destruction of
goods before passing property to buyer.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that loss as regards remainder will
fall on X as property in goods has not passed to buyer.
Que.16
In the pursuance of a contract to fill 20 bags of sugar out of a large quantity, the seller filled four
bags which the buyer takes away. Subsequently, the seller filled 16 more bags, informed the
buyer of this and requested him to take them away. The buyer promised to do so. Did the
property in the16 bags of sugar pass to the buyer?
Ans :
Provision:
As per Section 21 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, when there a contract for Sale of specific goods which
are not in a deliverable state, property in goods passes to buyer when;
 1) seller puts the goods in deliverable state and
2) buyer comes to know about deliverable state of goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, seller had filled remaining 16 bags and informed buyer about it where buyer
hadalso promised to take delivery of them. So it indicates that goods have been in deliverable state
and buyer has notice of it.
Conclusion:
Considering above provision and explanations, it may be concluded that property in goods has
passed to buyer.
Q.17
A agrees to purchase bales of paper from B at Madras. The goods are sent by railway, delivery to be
against payment by A through bank. A paid the amount and obtained a delivery order.
But the goods had been destroyed by fire before he had paid the amount. Has the property in the
goods passed to A?
Ans:
Provision:
As per section 25 (1) of Sale of goods act 1930, when the seller has appropriated goods to buyer
subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, seller is said to have reserved right of disposal where the
property in goods passes to buyer only when such condition is fulfilled. Also as per sub section 2 of
section 25 when seller has delivered goods through railway, but goods deliverable at order of seller,
seller is deemed to have reserved right of disposal.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, B has sent goods through railway but delivery to be against payment by A
through bank which indicates reservation of right to disposal by seller. Goods had been destroyed
before payment of price.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that property in goods has not
passed to A
Que.18
The defendant purchased 975 bales of rice being the whole contents of a “Gola”, paid earnest
money and took part delivery of rice. The rest was afterwards destroyed by fire. Would the
defendant be liable to pay the balance of the price in respect of the goods destroyed?
Ans:
Provision:
As per Section 20 of Sale of Goods Act,1930, when there is Unconditional contract for sale of specific
goods in deliverable state, property in goods passes to buyer at time of contract irrespective of
delivery or payment or both have been postponed.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, there is a sale of 975 bales of rice which are in deliverable state and there is no
condition for transfer of property in goods. Buyer has took part delivery but property has been
passed for total goods.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that buyer would be liable to pay
for remaining goods as property has been passed to him.
Que.19
A manufacturing jeweller delivers cartain articles of jewellery to B (whose business is to travel
about the country selling jewellery) upon the term that they should remain the property of A
until sold or paid for. B fraudulently pledges the jewellery with a pawn-broker and money
lender. Is thepledge valid ?
Provision:
As per section 30(2) of Sale of Goods Act 1930, when buyer has obtained possession of goods with
consent of seller before passing property to him, he may sell or pledge goods to third person, and if
such third person takes goods in good faith and without knowledge of right of lien of seller over
goods, such third person gets good title to goods.
 Fact of the Case:
In the given question, B had obtained delivery of Jewelry with A’s consent before passing property
which he pledged to Pawn broker and money lender. However, money lender obtained it in good
faith.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that pledge by buyer is valid.
Q.20
A, B, and C own certain cattle in common. A is left by B and C in possession of a cow which he sells
to D. D purchases it bona fide. Is the property in the cow transferred to D?
Ans:
Provision:
As per section 28 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, if one of joint owner of goods having sole possession of
goods with consent of other owners, sells goods to third party who buy goods in good faith and
without notice that seller had no authority to sell goods, such third person gets good title to goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, A B and C owned certain cattles of which one of Cow is left with A by B and C.
when A sold cow to D who bought in good faith.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that property in goods has
passed to D.
Q.21
P agrees to sell and deliver to Y 300 quintals of rice, but only 200 quintals are delivered. Y has the
rice weighed and accepts the quintals sent. Y afterwards objects that the whole of the 300 quintals
was not delivered and he refuses to pay for 200 quintals. Can Y be compelled to pay the price for
200 quintals ?
Ans :
Provision:
As per section 34 of Sale of goods act 1930, Delivery of part of goods with intention to have part
delivery of goods by seller, is not valid delivery. So buyer have option to reject goods delivered.
However, if Buyer accept the part delivery of goods he has to pay for the goods so accepted.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, there was contract to sell 300 quintals of rice however seller sent only 200
quintals of rice which amounts to part delivery of goods. However, buyer accepted such part delivery
of 200 quintals of rice.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that buyer has accepted part
delivery of 200 quintals of rice, so he has to pay for goods accepted by them.
Q.22
There was a sale of 25 tonnes of cloves for October/November shipment. The seller shipped 20
tonnes in November and 5 tonnes in December. Would the buyer be entitled to reject the whole 25
tonnes ?
Ans:
Provision:
As per section 34 of Sale of goods act 1930, Delivery of part of goods with intention to have part
delivery of goods by seller, is not valid delivery. So buyer have option to reject goods delivered.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, seller delivered 25 tons of cloves in two parts as 20 tons in November
andbalance 5 tons in December which amounts to part delivery of goods.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that there is a part delivery of
goods which can be rejected by buyer.
Q.23
There was a sale of 100 tonnes of paper to be shipped as early as possible by named ship or other
vessels. The named ship was not available and the seller shipped 50 tonnes on other ship,
informing the buyer that he has done so and that he had drawn on him for the price and proposing
to ship the remainder of the paper later. The buyer kept silent on this communication. The ship
was lost. The seller brought an action against the buyer for the price of 50 tonnes. Would he
succeed?
Ans.
Provision:
As per section 34 of Sale of goods act 1930, Delivery of part of goods with intention to have part
delivery of goods by seller, is not valid delivery. So buyer have option to reject goods delivered.
However, if Buyer accept the part delivery of goods he has to pay for the goods so accepted.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, there was a contract to sell 100 tons of papers to be delivered as soon as
possible. However, seller delivered only 50 tons of paper and informed buyer about the same. At
this communication, buyer remained silent which indicates his acceptance of delivery of 50 tons.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanations, it may be concluded that buyer is liable to pay for 50
tons of papers which has been lost, as property in goods has passed to him.
Q.24
B (a London merchant) places an order with A (a Bombay merchant) for 100 bales of cotton. B
sends his ship to Bombay for cotton. A delivers the cotton on board the ship, and takes bill of
lading from the master, making the cotton deliverable to A's order or assigns. The cotton arrived at
London, but before coming into B's possession, B becomes insolvent. The cotton has not been paid
for. Can A stop the cotton?
Ans :
Provision:
As per section 50 of Sale of goods Act 1930, when buyer becomes insolvent while the goods are in
course of transit, the seller may stop goods in transit and resume back the possession of goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, A sent goods through ship sent by B, but made goods deliverable at A’s order
and at the time B became insolvent while goods were in transit
Conclusion:
Considering above provision and explanations, it may be concluded that seller may exercise right of
stoppage in transit.
Q.25
1. X purchased a VCR at a public auction. Neither the auctioneer nor X knew at that time that
theVCR was a stolen property.
(a) Has the true owner any claim against (i) X or (ii) the auctioneer?
Ans :
Provision:
As per section 14(a) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, In every contract of sale, there is an implied
condition on the part of seller that;
I) in case of sale, the seller has a right to sell goods and
II) in case of agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell goods at time when property is to
pass.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, Auctioneer sold goods in auction to X which were stolen goods (about which
Auctioneer or X were not aware). So the contract of sale in auction of stolen goods is not giving any
title of owner to X.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that True owner can recover VCR
back from X.
Q.26
Mr. Samuel agreed to purchase 100 bales of cotton from Mr. Varun, out of his large stock and
sent his men to take delivery of the goods. They could pack only 60 bales. Later on, there was an
accidental fire and the entire stock was destroyed including 60 bales that were already packed.
Referring to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 explain as to who will bear the loss and
towhat extent?
 Ans :
Provision:
As per Section 21 of Sale of Goods Act 1930, when there a contract for Sale of specific goods which
are not in a deliverable state, property in goods passes to buyer when;
1) seller puts the goods in deliverable state and
2) buyer comes to know about deliverable state of goods.
As per Section 26, Risk follows ownership. It means, the risk of loss of goods is borne by the party
who has ownership of goods.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, there was a contract for sale of 100 bales of cotton to be packed and delivered
to buyer. However, seller could pack only 60 bales in presence of buyer’s agent so its ownership has
been passed to buyer, but remaining goods were still not packed so its ownership is not passed to
buyer.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanations, it may be concluded that loss of 60 bales of cotton
which were packed will be borne by Mr.Samuel ( Buyer) and loss of remaining 20 bales of cotton
which were not packed will be borne by Mr.Varun (seller).
Q.27
Ram consults Shyam, a motor-car dealer for a car suitable for touring purposes to promote the sale
of his product. Shyam suggests ‘Maruti’ and Ram accordingly buys it from Shyam. The car turnsout
to be unfit for touring purposes. What remedy Ram is having now under the Sale of Goods Act,
1930?
Ans :
Provision:
As per Section 16(1) of Sale of Goods Act 1930, ordinarily there is no implied condition as to Quality or
fitness for buyer’s purpose. However, the condition as to reasonable fitness of goods for particular
purpose may be implied if it is made known to seller.
Fact of the Case:
In the given question, Ram bought Maruti car to be fit for touring purpose, on suggestion of Shyam,
a motor car dealer. However car to be not fit for touring purpose.
Conclusion:
Considering above provisions and explanation, it may be concluded that Ram may reject Car by
cancelling contract and claim price back from Shyam.
1. Mr. G sold some goods to Mr. H for certain price by issue of an invoice, but payment in
respect of the same was not received on that day The goods were packed and lying in
the warehouse of Mr. G. The goods were inspected by H’s agent and were found to be
in order. Later on, the dues of the goods were settled in cash. Just after receiving cash,
Mr. G asked Mr. H that goods should be taken away from his warehouse to enable him
to store other goods purchased by him. After one day, since Mr. H did not take delivery
of the goods, Mr. G kept the goods out of the warehouse in an open space. Due to rain,
some goods were damaged.
Referring to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, analyse the above situation
and decide who will be held responsible for the above damage. Will your answer be
different, if the dues were not settled in cash and are still pending?
Answer :

Provision of Law:

 The question relates to the provision of passing of property and passing of risk under Sale of
Goods Act, 1930.
 In case of unconditional contract for specific or ascertained goods in a deliverable state and
it is communicated to buyer then property passes as and when the contract is made and it is
a provision that the risk will always follow the ownership. The person who is an owner shall
bear the risk unless there is default of some other party.
Facts of Case:
  Here in this case Mr.G sold some goods to Mr.H and issued invoice but payment was
pending for the same. The goods were packed and lying in the warehouse of Mr.G. The
goods were inspected by H’s agent were found to be proper. Mr.G told Mr.H to take away
the goods to enable him to store other goods purchased by him but Mr.H did not take
delivery of goods therefore Mr.G kept the goods out of warehouse in open space and due
to rain some of the goods were damaged.
Conclusion:

 Here in this case the ownership of the goods was already passed to Mr.H and he was
already communicated to take delivery therefore in this situation the loss will fall on Mr.H
as ownership was already passed to him and he was already informed to take delivery.
 Answer will remain same if the dues were not settled as it is immaterial whether price is
paid or not.
2. M/s Woodworth & Associates, a firm dealing with the wholesale and retail buying and
selling of various kinds of wooden logs, customized as per the requirement of the
customers. They dealt with Rose wood, Mango wood, Teak wood, Burma wood etc.
Mr. Das, a customer came to the shop and asked for wooden logs measuring 4 inches broad and 8
feet long as required by the carpenter. Mr. Das specifically mentioned that he required the wood
which would be best suited for the purpose of making wooden doors and window frames. The
Shop owner agreed and arranged the wooden pieces cut into as per the buyers requirements.
The carpenter visited Mr. Das’s house next day, and he found that the seller has supplied Mango
Tree wood which would most unsuitable for the purpose. The: carpenter asked Mr. Das to return
the woodenlogs as it would not meet his requirements.
The Shop owner refused to return the wooden logs on the plea that logs were cut to specific
requirements of Mr. Das and hence could not be resold.
(i) Explain the duty of the buyer as well as the seller according to the doctrine of
“Caveat Emptor”.
(ii) Whether Mr. Das would be able to get the money back or the right kind of
wood as requiredserving his purpose?
Answer:

Provision of Law:

 This question relates to the provision of Implied Conditions under Sale of Goods
Act,1930.
 Under the Sale of Goods Act,1930 the goods must be fit for the purpose for which it
is purchased and if it is not suitable for the purpose then buyer can reject the same
or claim damages or both. This is known as Implied Condition as to quality or
Fitness.
 It is also provided that for this condition to apply buyer must disclose his purpose
and seller must be usually dealing into the business of the same.
Facts of Case:

 In this case Mr.Das went to M/S Woodworth and Associates, a firm dealing with the
wholesale and retail buying and selling of various kinds of wooden logs, customized
as per the requirement of the customers. They dealt with Rose wood, Mango
wood, Teak wood, Burma wood etc. and he required the wood which would be
best suited for the purpose of making wooden doors and window frames. The Shop
owner agreed and arranged the wooden pieces.The carpenter visited Mr. Das’s
house next day, and he found that the seller has supplied Mango Tree wood which
would most unsuitable for the purpose. The: carpenter asked Mr. Das to return the
woodenlogs as it would not meet his requirements. Shop Owner refused to return
the wooden logs on the plea that logs were cut to specific requirements.
Conclusion:
  According to such doctrine buyer should be careful in selection of goods if later on
goods are found defective or unfit for buyer’s purpose then he cannot blame the
seller.Here, for the wrong selection of goods made by buyer, he himself will be held
responsible for.
 Here in this case the refusal made by the shop keeper is not valid as Mr.Das
specifically informed the purpose for which he wanted the wooden logs and it was
shopkeeper’s business to deal in different wooden logs.
3. Mrs. Geeta went to the local rice and wheat wholesale shop and asked for 100 kgs of
Basmati rice. The Shopkeeper quoted the price of the same as Rs. 125 per kg to which
she agreed. Mrs. Geeta insisted that she would like to see the sample of what will be
provided to her by the shopkeeper before she agreed upon such purchase.
The shopkeeper showed her a bowl of rice as sample. The sample exactly corresponded to the
entirelot.
The buyer examined the sample casually without noticing the fact that even though the sample
wasthat of Basmati Rice but it contained a mix of long and short grains.
The cook on opening the bags complained that the dish if prepared with the rice would not taste
thesame as the quality of rice was not as per requirement of the dish.
Now Mrs. Geeta wants to file a suit of fraud against the seller alleging him of selling mix of good
andcheap quality rice. Will she be successful?
Explain the basic law on sale by sample under Sale of Goods Act 1930
Decide the fate of the case and options open to the buyer for grievance redressal as per the
provisionsof Sale of Goods Act 1930?
What would be your answer in case Mrs. Geeta specified her exact requirement as to length of
rice?
Answer:
Provision of law:
 This question relates to the provision of sale by sample as well as Caveat Emptor
under Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
 As per the provision when the buyer purchases the goods by sample then goods
delivered to him must match with sample and buyer must be given an opportunity
to compare with the sample.
 Doctrine of Caveat Emptor provides that buyer should be careful while selecting
the goods if later on the goods are found defective or unfit for buyer’s purpose
then he cannot blame seller.
Facts of the case:
In this case Mrs.Geeta went to the local rice and wheat shop and asked for 100 kgs of Basmati
Rice.She also agreed to the price of Rs.125 and insisted to see the sample.The shopkeeper showed
her the bowl of rice as a sample the sample was of Basmati rice but it was mix of long and short
grains. Mrs.Geeta examined casually without noticing this fact and Rice were delivered to her. The
rice delivered exactly corresponded to sample. The cook on opening the bags complained that the
dish if prepared with the rice would not taste thesame as the quality of rice was not as per
requirement of the dish. Mrs.Geeta wants to file a case of fraud.
Conclusion:
 Here in this case rice delivered was matching with sample as well as description
and Mrs. Geeta was also given an opportunity to compare the goods with sample
and therefore there is no default or breach from the side of seller. It was duty of
Mrs.Geeta to check whether the goods are according to her purpose or not and
therefore under Caveat Emptor she will be considered as liable.
 If Mrs.Geeta specified her exact requirement of length of rice then Caveat
Emptor would not apply as she relied on expertise of seller and therefore she
could cancel the contract.
4. Mr. Amit was shopping in a self-service Super market. He picked up a bottle of cold
drink from a shelf. While he was examining the bottle, it exploded in his hand and
 injured him. He files a suit for damages against the owner of the market on the ground
of breach of condition. Decide under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, whether Mr. Amit
would succeed in his claim?
Answer:
Prvision of law:
 This question relates to provision of breach of condition under Sale of Goods Act,1930.
 Under Sale of Goods Act, 1930 goods must be of the merchantable quality if not then buyer
can cancel the contract and claim damages. Merchantable quality is not defined in act but if
a person of ordinary prudence can consider this as merchantable then it will not be a breach
of contract.
Facts of Case:

 In this case Mr. Amit was shopping in a self-service Super market. He picked up a bottle of
cold drink from a shelf. While he was examining the bottle, it exploded in his hand and
injured him. He files a suit for damages against the owner of the market on the ground of
breach of condition.
Conclusion:

 Here in this case if Mr.Amit had purchased the bottle and it was exploded in his hand then
he could have claimed for breach of condition. But if he was examining it without purchasing
then he could not claim any damages for breach of condition.
5. Mr. D sold some goods to Mr. E for Rs. 5,00,000 on 15 days credit. Mr. D delivered the
goods. On due date Mr. E refused to pay for it. State the position and rights of Mr. D
as per the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Answer:
Provision of Law:

 This question relates to rights of Unpaid seller under Sale of Goods Act,1930
 A seller will be treated as an unpaid seller if in case of cash sales he has not received
the cash or in case cheque or negotiable instrument has been received as
conditional payment and condition has not been fulfilled by the reason of dishonor
or otherwise.
 Unpaid seller have two types of Rights: 1)Right against goods 2) Right against buyer
 Until the goods are delivered to buyer, buyer can have right against goods but once the
goods will be delivered to buyer the right of unpaid seller against goods will cease and
unpaid seller will have rights only against buyer.
 In case the seller has delivered the goods on credit and buyer have not paid the price unpaid
seller will have a right to sue for price which is known as Right to sue and he can also claim
the interest on such price till the Price is paid which is also known as .
Facts of the Case:

 In this case Mr. D sold some goods to Mr. E for Rs. 5,00,000 on 15 days credit. Mr. D delivered
the goods. On due date Mr. E refused to pay for it.
Conclusion:

 As per the provision position of Mr.D is Unpaid Seller. And he has a right to sue for price as
well as interest against Mr.E. He will not have any right against goods as the goods are
already delivered.