• Save
Legal incidents of Sale & agreement to sell
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Legal incidents of Sale & agreement to sell

on

  • 164 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
164
Views on SlideShare
164
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Address the media and public as soon as possible. Do not stonewall the facts. The longer disclosure is delayed, the more damage is done to the company's image.The company spokesperson must deal with the media and public with complete candor. The media will eventually reveal any distortions or omissions of truth – that's their job.Conceal none of the facts. The media will eventually uncover anything concealed - that's also their job.Retain competent legal counsel if necessary.
  • AIR all in report- to study to case
  • Hansanord is a place, in GermanyQb is queen benchRepudiate ---refuse to accept; reject.
  • KB is kings bench
  • Weekly Law Reports. WLR
  • Ex parte- all imp
  • Weekly Law Reports. WLRCitation (year to end)

Legal incidents of Sale & agreement to sell Legal incidents of Sale & agreement to sell Presentation Transcript

  • M A D E B Y : - VISHAKHA UTSAV GUPTA ANUJ CHAUDHARY SHAILENDER SINGH LEGAL INCIDENTS OF SALE & AGREEMENT TO SELL
  • INTRODUCTION  Prior to 1930, The Laws Relating to Sale and Purchase of Goods was Dealt by: The Indian Contract Act, 1872  In 1930, Sections 76 to 123 of The Contract Act were repealed and a separate Act Known as Sale of Goods Act,1930 was passed.  The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was laid down to define and amend the law relating to the sale of Goods or Movables. The Act Came into Force on the 1st Of July, 1930; extending to Whole of the India Except Jammu and Kashmir.
  • CONTRACT OF SALE:  Section 4(1) of the Sale of Goods Act,1930 Defines the Term “Contract of Sale” as- A Contract of Sale of Goods is a Contract Whereby the Seller Transfers or Agrees to Transfer the Property in Goods to the Buyer for a Price.  The Contract of Sale Can be Clubbed in Two Types: : SALE : AGREEMENT TO SELL
  • MEANING OF: SALE: It is a Contract where the ownership in the Goods is Transferred by the Seller to the Buyer Immediately at the Conclusion Contract. AGREEMENT TO SELL: It is a contract of sale where the transfer of property in Goods is to take place at a future date or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled.
  • ESSENTIALS OF A CONTRACT OF SALE:  There must be at-least Two Parties.  The Subject Matter of the Contract Must be Goods.  Price.  Transfer of Property in Goods.  Absolute or Conditional.  All Other Essentials of a Valid Contract.
  • DIFFERENCE BASIS SALE AGREEMENT TO SELL 1. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY The Property of Goods Passes from the seller to the Buyer immediately. So the seller is no more owner of the Goods sold. It is an Executed Contract. The transfer of property of the Goods is to take place at a future time or subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled. It is an executory contract. 2. TYPE OF GOODS A sale can only be in-case of existing and specific Goods only. An Agreement to sell is mostly in-case of future and contingent goods. Although it may refer to uncertain existing goods. 3. RISK OF LOSS In a Sale, If the Goods Are Destroyed, the loss falls on the buyer even though the goods are in the possession of the seller. In an agreement to sell, if the goods are destroyed, the loss falls on the seller even though the goods are in the possession of the buyer.
  • BASIS SALE AGREEMENT TO SELL 4. CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH In a sale, if the buyer fails to pay the price of goods or if there is a breach in the contract, the seller can sue for the price even though the goods are still in his possession. If there is a breach of contract by the buyer, the seller can only sue for the damages and not for the price. 4. RIGHT TO RE-SELL The seller cannot resell the goods. The buyer who takes the goods for consideration and without notice of the prior agreement gets him a good title. The original buyer can only sue he seller for damages 5. GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROPERTY The sale of contract plus conveyance, creates “Jus in Rem”, ie: Give right to the buyer to enjoy the goods as against the word and large including the seller. An agreement to sell is merely a contract, pure and simple and creates “jus in personam”,ie: Gives a right to the buyer against the seller to sue for the damages
  • BASIS SALE AGREEMENT TO SELL 7. INSOLVENCY OF THE BUYER In a sale, if the buyer becomes insolvent before he pays for goods, the seller in the absence of the lien over the goods, must return them to the official receiver or assignee. He can only claim the reteable dividend for the price of the goods. If the buyer becomes insolvent, and has not yet paid the price, the seller is not bound to part with the goods until he is paid for. 8. INSOLVENCY OF THE SELLER If the seller becomes insolvent, the buyer being the owner is entitled to recover the goods from the official receiver of the assignee. If the buyer who has paid the price, finds that the seller has become insolvent, he can only claim a reteable dividend and not the goods because property in them has not yet
  • Legal incidents
  • Cehave N.V. v. Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH; the Hansa Nord [1976] Q.B. 44. Summary of the fact: A written contract to sell fruit pellets contained the express stipulation, “shipment to be made in good condition.” In fact, some of the pellets were not in good condition when shipped. However, they were, on arrival, still fit to be used for the purpose the buyer had intended and although they were worth less than they should have been, they could still have been re- sold at a reduced price. Issue: 1.Whether there is a breach of condition? 2.Whether the buyer is entitled to repudiate the contract and reject the goods?
  • Contd. Decision: It was held that there was no breach of condition and the buyer was not entitled to repudiate the contract and to reject the goods. But the buyer is entitled to damages. Reasoning: The sellers were not in breach of the implied conditions as to fitness for purpose and merchantable quality. The express stipulation in the contract was not a condition and the sellers’ breach of it had not been serious enough to go to the root of the contract. Therefore the buyers were entitled only to damages.
  • Rowland v. Divall [1923] 2 K.B. 500. Summary of fact: 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. Issue: 1.Whether there is a breach of condition? 2.Whether the buyer is entitled to recover the total purchase price?
  • 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. 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.
  • Beale v. Taylor [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1193. Summary of the fact: A buyer responded to an advertisement describing a car for sale as a “1961” model. He inspected the car before buying it. After buying it he discovered that the car consisted of half a 1961 model and half of an earlier car. Issue: 1.Whether there was a breach of implied condition as to description? 2.Whether the buyer was entitled to reject the car?
  • Contd. Decision: It was held that the seller was liable for breach of condition as to description and the buyer is entitled to reject the goods thereby. Reasoning: The buyer had relied at least to some extent on the description of the goods which becomes a condition. Therefore dissimilarity with the description of the delivered goods caused the breach of such condition.
  • Nichol v. Godts (1854) 10 Ex. 191 Summary of the Fact: Nichol agreed to sell to Godts some oil described as “foreign refined rape oil, warranted only equal to sample.” Nichol delivered oil equal to the quality of the samples, but which was not “foreign refined rape oil.” Issue: 1.Whether a breach of condition has occurred? 2.Whether the buyer is entitled to refuse the goods?
  • Contd. Decision: It was held that breach of condition occurred and Godts could refuse to accept the goods. Reasoning: Where there is a sale of goods by sample as well as by description, the goods must correspond with the description as well as sample. Here the goods corresponded with the sample but not with the description.
  • Re Moore & Co. v. Landauer & Co. [1921] 2 K.B. 519 Summary of Fact: Moore sold to Landauer 3,100 cases of Australian canned fruits, the cases to contain 30 tins each. Moore delivered the total quantity, but about half the cases contained 24 tins, and the remainder 30 tins. Landauer rejected the goods. There was no difference in market value between goods packed 24 tins and goods packed 30 tins to the case. Issue: 1.Whether a breach of condition has occurred? 2.whether the buyer is entitled to reject the goods/
  • Contd. Decision: It was held that Landauer could reject the whole goods as there was a breach of condition. Reasoning: As the goods delivered did not correspond with the description of those ordered.
  • Brown (B.S.) & Son Ltd. V. Craiks Ltd. [1970] 1 W.L.R. 752 Summary of fact: The buyer of “industrial fabric” found that it was unsuitable for making into dresses but that it was suitable for other industrial purposes; as such it was commercially saleable, though at a slightly reduced price. Issue: 1.Whether the goods were of merchantable quality?
  • Decision: It was held that the goods were of merchantable quality. Reasoning: The goods could be used for some other purposes and it had commercial value. Therefore it meets the demand of merchantable quality. If the goods supplied are useless for any purpose for which goods of that description are usually used then they are probably not of merchantable quality. On the other hand, if they are still suitable for some of the purposes for which goods of that description are usually used and could be re-sold for the same or very nearly the same price as if they were suitable for every purpose, they will remain of merchantable quality.
  • Reference  http://ahsanlaw.blogspot.in/2012/01/case-laws-on-sales-of-goods-act- 1930.html