The Sale of Goods

Act 1930

BY,
Vigneshvaran.R , 1st M.B.A

Parties

Appellant - Kailash Sharma

(Branch Manager and authorized
representative of M/s Post Control (India)
Pvt. Limited.)

Respondent - The Patna Municipal

Corpn. and ors.

Case Brief
The

Appellant-Company sold a certain

number of fogging machines (used for
killing mosquitoes) to the RespondentCorporation for which the payment had
to be made within one week of delivery.
The Respondents did not pay within
one week. The Respondent did not
communicate with the appellants
regarding the payment afterwards too.

Case Brief
After

6 months of using the machine, the

Respondents communicated with the
appellants, but only to complain about the
fogging machines inefficiency. They said
that the machines were defective. Next, the
Respondents intended to return the
machines. The Appellants have filed this suit
to recover the payment of machines from
the respondents. The Judgement is given
after three year of the delivery of goods.

Questions ?
Can

the Respondents sue against the

Appellant for the inefficiency of the
machine?

can the Appellant claim payment

from the Respondents?

Guess

the Judgement ?

Answers

NO, because Section 13 (2) of the

Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930 , clearly states that where
there is a warranty then at best the purchaser can raise a
claim for damage but cannot repudiate the transaction
itself.

YES
Respondents were held to be liable to pay for the fogging
machines as they could not legitimately return the
machines after use/ repudiate the transaction.

The court eventually held that the Respondent-Corporation

is at fault in law for the non-payment. The Judgement is
given in favour of Kailash Sharma .