Sale Of Goods Act Case Studies

1. Sale Of Goods Act (SOGA) Business law BY Nirmalkumar G

2. CASE STUDIES • Barrow lane & Ballard Ltd (v) phillip and phillips &co Ltd (1929) K.B. 574 • Couchman (v) Hill 1947 K.B 554 • Mills and Stockman • Rowland (v) Divalli 1923 2K.B

3. Barrow lane & Ballard Ltd (v) phillip and phillips &co Ltd (1929) K.B. 574 Summary of the Fact: • A sold to Y 700 bags marked “E.C.P.” and known as lot 7 of Chinese groundnuts, lying in a specified warehouse. • At the time of the sale there were, unknown to parties, only 591 bags, and 109 bags having been stolen.

4. Issue: • Whether the non-existence of the goods at the time of the contract will render the contract void? • Whether the seller is entitled to the full amount of money which was agreed between the parties as the price of the goods in total?

5. Decision: • It was held that the contract was void. Therefore no duty or liability on the part of either party shall accrue in this case. The seller is not entitled to the price and the goods accepted by the buyer shall be returned.

6. Reasoning: • If, in a contract for the sale of specific goods, the goods have, without the seller’s knowledge, perished at the time when the contract was made, the contract is void according to section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 of United Kingdom.

7. Couchman and Hill 1947 K.B 554 • Summary of Fact: • In the catalogue at a sale by auction a heifer was described as “unserved”. • Both the owner and the auctioneer confirmed this in answer to a question by the bidder. T • he printed conditions of sale excluded liability for misdescription.

8. But the plaintiff buyer was an insistent sort of fellow and he asked both the auctioneer and the defendant seller specifically if they could confirm what was in the catalogue, namely, that the heifer was unserved. • He received a positive answer from each. He then bid for the heifer and was successful. • Later it was found that the heifer was pregnant and she died from carrying a calf at too young an age.

9. Issue: • Whether a breach of warranty has occurred? • Whether the buyer is entitled to damages for such breach?

10. Decision: • It was held that breach of warranty has occurred and the seller was liable in damages for breach of warranty.

11. Reasoning: • The special warranty overrides the printed conditions of sale. • Though there was an exemption clause in the catalogue but the decision of the buyer to buy the heifer depended upon the positive assurance given by the seller and the auctioneer about her being unserved. • Therefore, it amounts to a special warranty which was subsequently breached. • Therefore, notwithstanding the exemption clause the seller is liable to pay damages. • The exemption clause affects the catalogue but not the oral assurance which is given by the seller and the auctioneer.

12. Mills (v) stockman • There war a contrct to sell a heep of slate which have been left on the ground for any years by a quarrying business. • The contract gave the buyers a right to enterthe land and to remove the heap of slate. • It was held that the contract was not for the sale of goods.

13. The slate had been left in such circumstances that they had becoe part of the land and further, there was no terms in the contract that they be severed under the contract of sale.

14. Rowland and Divall • Rowland bought a motor-car from Divall and used it for four months. Divall had no title to the car, and consequently Rowland had to surrender it to the true owner. Rowland sued to recover the total purchase price he had paid to Divall.

15. Issue: • Whether there is a breach of condition? • Whether the buyer is entitled to recover the total purchase price?

16. Decision: • It was held that there is a breach of implied condition as to title by the seller and therefore the buyer is entitled to recover the purchase price in full, notwithstanding that he used the car for four months.

17. Reasoning: • There was a breach of condition. • Consequently the buyer can repudiate the contract and reject the goods. • But in this case the car was already taken by the real owner; hence no question of rejection of goods arises. • Therefore, the buyer can repudiate the contract by taking back the full purchase money as damages due to the breach of condition. • The consideration had totally failed on the part of the seller. • The use of the car that he had had was no part of the consideration that he had contracted for, which was the property in and lawful possession of the car, whereas what he got was an unlawful which exposed him to the risk of an action at the suit of the true owner.

18. Thank you