1

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
BACHELOR OF LAWS (LLB) YEAR TWO
MERCANTILE LAW I (The Law of Sale of Goods & Agency)

COURSE OUTLINE:

Course Title: Law of Sale of Goods & Agency

Course Code: BLAW2104

Contact hours: 4 Lecture Hours & 2 Tutorial Hours per week

Credit Units: 5

Lecturer: Mr. Kashaija Emmanuel

Tutorial Assts: Mr. Lazaka Tibakuno

Ms. Proscovia Atuhaire

A. Course Description
The law of sales is an extension of the law of contact with roots in the over 900-
year-old mercantile custom and usage. Lex mercantoria (the law merchant). This
inquiry into domestic trade in goods is intended to introduce you to the fundamental
knowledge and skills in the area of sales and the related transactions. Trading in
goods has been a central part of the social and economic fabric of Ugandan since
time immemorial. However, from the time of colonialism certain changes were
introduced in the way formal commercial transactions were conducted with the
adoption of the Sale of Goods Act (1893) (UK) in the legal regime with necessary
modification to suit local circumstances. The present course of study seeks to
enlighten the student on the various provisions of the Uganda Sale of Goods and
Supply of Services Act, 2017 and its application to daily commercial transactions
involving the transfer of property in goods as well as other kinds of transactions
related to the sale of goods, supply of services and agency etc.

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer

 2

B. Course Aim
This course is intended to develop knowledge of the legal principles that underlie
the very simple and everyday act of buying and selling goods and supply of services
in a domestic perspective (Uganda).
It is also intended to develop skills in drafting and construction of sale of goods and
supply of services contracts.

C. Course Objectives
At the completion of the course, through interactive lecturers, discussions,
presentations, and research, the student should be able to:
1) Develop and understand the origins of Uganda’s law of sale of goods, supply of
services and the related transactions and the law of agency;

2) Understand the fundamental principles of law of sales of goods, supply of services

and the law of agency;

3) Distinguish a sales transaction from other commercial transactions that almost

resemble it. i.e Barter, Bailment, Hire purchase, Agency, conditional sales,
Contract of loan on security of goods, Contract for supply of services etc.

4) Identify the different participants in sales transactions, their obligations and

potential legal liabilities.

5) Suggest remedies/ solutions to legal problems/disputes that may arise in the

course of sale of goods and supply of services transactions;

6) Identify gaps in the law and suggest possible reforms in light of the changing local
circumstances and global trends in sale of goods and supply of services practices.

D. Methodology of Study
Lecture sessions will be points of contact between the lecturer/tutor and the
students. Students are expected to attend lecturers, ask questions, discuss and
receive guidance for further study and research. Students are required to read and
comprehend the recommended texts and cases, and will be called upon to make
presentations in class for discussion.
Total reliance on ‘handouts’ from the lecturer is discouraged since the very focus of
legal education at this level is individual or group study with a view to contributing
to discussion in class that will enable you to understand, and arrive at new and
important realizations on the subject.

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer

 3

A good understanding of market trends in Uganda will also enable an excellent

articulation of views in oral contributions in class, and the ability to incorporate that
outlook into your coursework and examinations will attract high grades.
Guest speakers may be called in where possible to speak about particular issues
under consideration and the best practices in the Law of sale of goods and supply of
services.
Coursework assessment and examinations will be given according to the semester
schedule. Coursework contributes 30%, while the final exam contributes 70% to the
final grade. You will receive instructions and assessment criteria prior to undertaking
the coursework.

E. Requirements
The students taking this course should have a good grasp of the law of contract,
which is the foundation of all issues under consideration.
Note: Every student undertaking this course must personally own a copy of the Sale
of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 2017 and a highlighter pen.
The student is advised to meticulously attend to his/her work at all stages of this
course of study. With that caution, diligence and industriousness will be rewarded,
while incompetence will be treated with deserving contempt.

F. Faith in teaching
Where applicable we shall explore how, and to what extent Christianity informs
aspects of the course unit.

G. Course Materials
i) Recommended Reading:
1) P.S. Atiyah (2005). The Sale of Goods, 11th edn, Pitman, London, UK/ (2000) 10th
Edn.

2) K.I Laibuta (2006), Principles of Commercial Law, Law Africa Publishing, Kenya.

3) John Joseph Ogola (2005), Business Law, Focus Publishing Ltd, Kenya.

4) David Kelly, et al (2005). Business Law, 5th edn, Cavendish Publishing Ltd,
London.

5) Dennis Keenan (2003), Smith and Keenan’s Law for Business,12th edn, Peason,
Longman.
Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer
 4

6) Keith Abbott et al, (2002), Business Law, 7th edn, Thomson, UK

7) Paul Dobson (1997), Charlesworth’s Business Law, 16thEdn, Thomson, Sweet and
Maxwell, London.

8) Hans-W Michkitz, Jules Stuyck, Evelyne Terryn (2010), Cases Materials and Text
on Consumer Law (Oxford, HartPublishing).

9) Halsbury’s laws of England (3rd edition).

ii) Relevant Statutes:

1) Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, No. 10 of 2017.

2) Contracts Act, No. 7 of 2010.

iii) Websites
1) Uganda Legal information Institute, www.ulii.org (Decisions of courts of
Uganda).

2) British & Irish Legal Information Institute, www.bailii.org (British, Irish &
European Union case law).

iv) Cases;
1) Hon. Mable Bakeine v. Yuasa Investments Ltd. (Commercial Division) HCCS
No. 136 of 2013
2) Mogas (U) Ltd v. Benzina (U) Ltd. (Commercial Division) HCCS NO. 88 of 2013
3) Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v. Hajji Yahaya Sekalega T/A Sekalega Enterprises.
(Commercial Division) HCCS No. 185 of 2009
4) Transtel Ltd & Diamond Stars Ltd v. Mahi computers & Appliances Ltd &
Property Services (U) Ltd. (Commercial Division) HCCS NO. 397 of 2015.
5) Aldridge v. Johnson (1851-58) 8 QB 118.
6) Adan v. Tanga – Mombasa Transport Co. (1955) 28 KLR 14. 4.
7) Dennant v. Skinner (1948) 2KB164.
8) John Nsaga v. Haji Juma Kayongo CS No. 607/1978 High Court of Uganda.
9) Kanti Printing Works v. Tanga District Administration (1970) HCB 257.
10) Karia v. Shah (1962) EA43.
11) Leslie & Anderson v. Kassam Jivraj & Co. Ltd (1950) EACA 84. 14.
12) National Pharmacy Ltd. v. Kampala City Council C/S 461/1977 Ugandan High
Court.

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer

 5

2. Transfer of property and Title under the Contract of sale

2.1: The principle of Nemo dat quad non habet (one cannot pass a better title than
that he/she possessed).
1) Bishopsgate Motor Fiance Corp V Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 332.
2) Butterwood v Kingsway Motors (1954) 1 WLR1286
3) Dennant v Skinner (1948)2 KB 162.
4) Ingram v Little (1961 1 QB 31
5) Johana Mbugwa v Mwangi Mugwe (1949) 16 EACA1.
6) Karimbux v Dalgety (1934) 1 EACA 121.
7) Kirkham v Attenborough (1897) 1QB201.
8) Healy v Howlett & Sons [1917] 1 KB337.
9) Pignataro v Gilroy & Sons [1919]1 KB459.
10) Nanka Bruce v Common wealth Trust Ltd [1926] AC77.

2.2 Transfer of Title by Non-owner/Exceptions to Nemo Dat.

1) Eastern Distributers v Goldring (1957) 1 QB371.
2) Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance (1957) 1QB 371.
3) Vallabhdas Hirji Kapadia v Laxmidas (1964) EA378.
4) Lloyds and Scottish Finance v Williamson (1965)1 ALL ER 641. 5. Pacific Motor
Auctions v Motor Credits (1965) ALLER 105.
5) Dennant v Skinner (19482 KB 164.

Exceptions to Nemo Dat

i) Estoppel by representation & Negligence.
1) Henderson & Co. Ltd. V Williams (1895) 1QB 521.
2) Farquharson bros v J King & Co. Ltd (1902) AC325.
3) Sale by an unauthorized mercantile agent.

ii) Sale under voidable Title.

1) Phillips v Brooks (1919) 2KB 243.
2) Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 AC 459
3) Ingram v Little (1961) 1 QB31
4) Lewis v Avery (1971) 2ALL ER507.
5) Namjee Brothers v Awadh (1969) EA 521.

iii) Sale by Seller in Possession after a sale

1) Staff Motor Guarantee Ltd v British Wagon (1934) ALL ER 322.
2) Union Transport Finance Ltd. V Ballardie (1965) ALL ER105
Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer
 6

3) Worcester Finance Co. V Cooden Engineering Co. Ltd. (1971) 3 WLR 661/
[1972] QB 210.
4) Eastern Distributors Ltd. V Goldring (157) 1QB 600
5) Olds Discount, Ltd, Ltd v Krett (1940) 2KB117.

Iv) Sale by mercantile Agent in possession of goods with owner’s consent.

1) Moody v Pall Mall Deposit (1917)3 TLR 306.
2) ROLKES V King (1923)1 KB 282
3) Lloyds Bank v Bank of America (1938)2 KB 147.

v) Ordinary course of business

1) Pearson v Rose Young (1951) 1 KD275.
2) Stadium Finance Ltd v Robbins (1962)2 QB 664
3) Oppenheimer v Prazar & Wyatt (1907)2 KB519.

3. Risk and Frustration

1) Bolus & Co v Kirparam & Some (1915) 6 EALR
2) Sterns Ltd v Vickers Ltd (1923) 1KB78.
3) Demby Hamilton v Bearden (1949) 1 ALL ER 435
4) Tarling v Baxter (1823) 6IB.C.360.
5) Asfar & Co. Ltd v Blundell (1896) 1 QB 123, CA.
6) Horn v Minister of Food (1948) 2 ALL ER 1036
7) Barrow, Lane & Ballard Ltd v Phillip Phillip & Co. Ltd (1929) 1KB574.
8) Twentsche Overseas Trading v Uganda Sugar 12 EACA 1.
9) Financing Ltd. Stinson (1962)3 ALL ER 386.
10) Howell v Coupland (1876) 1 QB 258.

4. The duty to pass a good title.

4.1 Seller’s right to sell the goods
1) All Kassan Virani v United Africa Co, (1958) EA 204.
2) Llanga v Manyoka 91961 EA705.
3) Lakhamani Bros. Ltd v Raja & Sons (1966) EA 178.
4) Rowland v Dival (1923) 2 KB 500, CA.
5) Butterworth v Kingsway Motors (1954)1 WLR (1986)
6) Niblett v Confectioners Material (1921) 3 KB 387/CA.

4.2 Implied Duties of the seller

a) Warranty that Goods are Free from Encumbrances
Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer
 7

1) N.W. Bank v Poynter (1895) AC56.

2) Official Assignees of Madres v Mercantile Bank of India (1938) AC 287
4.3 Exemption Clauses
1) Omer v Basses 9 (1960) EA 907
2) Jafferali Abdul v Janmohamed Ltd (1957) 18 EACA 21.
3) Wallis v. Pratt 91911) AC394.
4) Andrews v Singer (1934) 1 KB 170, CA.
5) L’Estrange v Graucob (1934) 2 KB 394.
6) Karsales v Wallis (1956)1 WLR 936/ (1956)2 ALL ER866.
7) Suisse Atlantique v Rotterdamsche (1966)2 ALL ER 61/ (1967)1 AC 361.
8) Photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) AC827
9) Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning Co. [1951] 1 ALL ER631.
10) Dar Es Salaam Motor Transport Co. Ltd v Metha & Others [1952] 2 EACA 447.

4.4 THE DUTIES OF THE BUYER

I) The Duty to Pay the Price.
1) E.D Kresman & Co. v Ltd. Lakhani Ltd. (1964) EA 294.
2) Kari Singh v General workshops 18 EACA 4.
3) National Pharmacy Ltd. v Kampala City Council Ltd (1977).

II) The Duty to Take Delivery

1) Kampala General Agency Ltd v Mody’s (EA) Ltd
2) Alinius v Globe Merchantile Corpn. Ltd (1968) EA114.
3) Devshi S. Shah v Sudhnan Mohanlal (1951) EACA 79.

5. Basic Rule: Caveat Emptor.

Implied condition that goods shall correspond with Description.
1) Abdul Saleni v East African Trading Co. 2 EALR 12.
2) Livio Carli v Salem Ltd v Sunderji 16 EACA 72.
3) Alibhai Panju & Sons Ltd v Sunderji 16 EACA72.
4) Pan African Trading Agencies v Chande Bros 19 EACA 141.
5) Juthalal Velji v Gulamjusen R Jirraji 16 EACA75.
6) Nurmohamed Murji Dattu EACA 294.
7) Varley v Whipp (1900)1QB 513.
8) Re Moore & Landaner (1921)2KB 519, CA.

6. Implied condition that goods must be fit for particular purpose.

1) Norman v Overseas Motor Transport Ltd. (1959 EA 131.
Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer
 8

2) Omer v Besse (1960) EA907.

3) Dola Singh v Uganda F & M Works 12 EACA 33.
4) Ashington Paggeries v Christopher Hill Ltd. (1972) AC 441.
5) Baldry v Marshall (1925) 1 KB 260.
6) Spencer v devon (1947) 1 ALL ER284.
7. Implied Condition that goods are Merchantable
1) Omer v Besse 2 (1960) EA907.
2) Doola Singh v Uganda Foundry & Machinery 12 EACA33.
3) Bristol Tramways Co. Ltd v Fiat Motors Ltd [1910] 2 KB 831.
4) Wren v Holt (1903) 1K.B.668.
5) Wilson v Richet Cooherell (1954) 1QB 598.
6) Gedding v Marsh (1929) 1 KB 668.
7) Nibelett v Confectioners Materials Co. Ltd (1921) 3KB 387.

8. Terms implied by trade usage.

1) Flency v King Mohammed Wallie & Co. IZLR17.

9. Terms implied in sales by sample.

1) Jafferali Abdul, v Jan Mohammed Ltd., 18 EACA 21
2) Shaha Rhambhai Patel 23 EACA329.
3) Ali Kassam Virani Ltd Janmohamed Ltd 18 EACA 21.
4) Godley v Perry (1960)1 ALL ER 254.

10. REMEDIES
I) Jus In Rem (real remedies); Unpaid seller’s Rights and Powers against the goods.
1) Omer v Besse (1960) E.A 907.

a) Unpaid Seller’s Lien

1) Guster Adolf v Leslie (1967) EA.
2) Mohamed Hussein v Kashayjietc (1952) 19 EACA 162.

b) Unpaid Seller’s Right of Stoppage in Transit.

1) Bethel Q. Co.v Clerk & Co. (1988) 20 QB 615.
2) Lyons v Hoffnung (1890) 15 AC391.
3) Housing & Co. v Dharsi TZLR 272.
4) Mordaunt Bros v British Oil & Cake Mills Ltd (1910) 2KB502.

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer

 9

c) Unpaid Seller’s Right of Resale

1) Bhangwanji & Co. v Mohamed (1953) 26 KLR 12.
2) Housing & Co. Saleh Dharsi 1SZLR272.
3) Callagher v Shillick (1949 2(KB 765.

II) Jus In Personum (personal remedies); remedies against the buyer himself
a) Action for the Price.
1) Ghulam Kadir v British Overseas Engineering Corp. (1957) EA 131.
2) Devshi Samat Shah v Burhram M (1951) EACA79.
3) Hari Singh v General Workshop (1951) 18 EACA 4.
4) Guggehhem Ltd v Ratguru (1952) 7 ULR 55.

b) Action for damages for non-acceptance of the goods.

1) Davshi Samat Shah v B. Mohamlal 18 EACA 79.
2) Kassam Jivrj & Co. Ltd. Gullamhussein & Co. 24. (2) KLR 40.

10.2 REMEDIES OF THE BUYER

I). Rejection of the Goods
1) Copalds Chagan Siraj v Like Thomas 7 Co. Ltd (1961) EA 29.
2) Livio Carli v Salen Homahed Boshanfer (1959 EA701.
3) Jiwan Singh v Rugnath Jeram (145) 12 EACA21.
4) Pan African Trading Agency v Chande Bros Ltd (1951) 19 EACA.
5) Mussa Hassan v Hunt (1964) EA201.
6) Livin Carli v Geom Rzompichaita (1961) EA 100.
7) Kampala General Agency v Mody’s (1963) EA549.
8) Panaser v Popat (1968) EA 17.

a) Loss of Right to reject goods

1) The iron and Steel Work v Martyr 7 ULR 146.
2) Norman v Overseas Transport (1959) EA131
3) N.V. African Handlers Ass.v Kanji (1923) 9 KRL196.
4) Uttamchard & Co. Ltd v F. J. Hawkes &Co. Ltd (1955) EA 197.
5) N. Murji v A.C.D. (1955) 22 EACA294.
6) R. Kishen v Leyland 5 EAPLR159
7) Hardy & cp. V Hillems (1923)2 KB490.
8) Rosenthal & Sons Ltd v Esmail (1965)2 ALL ER 860.
9) Popular Hardware’s Ltd v Electro Craft Ltd HCCS 5210/1976.

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer

 10

II. Action for non-delivery.

Specific performance
1) Isaac Bishari v Vitafoam [1994] VI KALR 180.

THE LAW OF AGENCY

1) Re Shepherd (1953) CH728.
2) Springer Vs GW Railway (1921) 1 KB 257.
3) Prager Vs Blatspiel(1924)
4) Grover & Grover Vs Mathews (1910), 2KB 40.
5) Bolton Vs Lambert (1889), Ch295.

I) Authority of an Agent
1) Rama Corporation Vs proved Tin & General Investments Ltd (1952) 1 ALLER.
2) Attorney General Vs Silva (1953) AC 461.
3) Admund Schulter & Co. (U) Ltd Vs Patel (1969) EA 259.
4) Watteau Vs Fenwick (1893), 1 QB 346.

II) Duties of the Agent.

1) Lilley vs Doubleday (1881), 7 QBD510.
2) Marianne Winther Vs Arbon Langrish & Southern Ltd [1966] EA 292.
3) Igben & Oke Vs Etwarie (1971) 1 NCLR85.
4) Turner Vs Goldsmith (1891) 1 QB544.
5) London and Joint Stock Bank Vs Simmons (1892, AC 201.
6) Grover & Grover Vs Mathews (1910), 2KB401.
7) Bolton Vs Lambert (1889), Ch295.
8) Lilley Vs Doubleday (1881), 7 QBD510.

III) Rights of the Agent

1) London and Joint Stock Bank Vs Simmons (1892, AC 201.

IV) Duties of the Principal

1) Basma Vs Weeks (1950) AC441.
2) Schmalz Vs Avery (1851) 16 QB 655

Procrastination is a thief of time!!!

Kashaija Emmanuel, LLM (MUK), LLB (UCU), Dip. LP (LDC) -Lecturer