Annexure-V- Cover Page for Academic Tasks

Course Code: BSL 101 Course Title: BUSINESS LAW

Course Instructor: DR. PRIYA MANDIRATTA

Academic Task No.: 2 Academic Task Title: SALE OF GOODS ACT 1930

Date of Allotment: 2.4.2022 Date of submission: 12.4.2022

Student’s Roll no: RQ2OO2B58 Student’s Reg. No: 12014141

Evaluation Parameters: (Parameters on which student is to be evaluated- To be mentioned by students as specified at the
instructor)

Learning Outcomes: (Student to write briefly about learning

obtained from the academic tasks)

Declaration:

I declare that this Assignment is my individual work. I did not

copied it from any other student’s work or from any other
source except where due acknowledgement is made explicitly in
the text.

Student’s Signature: PARIVESH GOYAL

Evaluator’s comments (For Instructor’s use only)

General Observations Suggestions for Improvement Best part of assignment

Evaluator’s Signature and Date:

Marks Obtained: Max. Marks: …………………………

Report On Introduction To Sale Of Goods Act 1930

And Conditions And Warranties:-
1. Sale of Goods Act 1930:-
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 governs the contracts relating to sale of goods. It applies to the
whole of India including Jammu and Kashmir after removing of ‘article 370’. The contacts for
sale of goods are subject to the general principles of the law relating to contracts i.e. the Indian
Contact Act. A contract for sale of goods has, however, certain peculiar features such as,
transfer of ownership of the goods, delivery of goods rights and duties of the buyer and seller,
remedies for breach of contract, conditions and warranties implied under a contract for sale of
goods, etc.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CONTRACT OF SALE:

Two parties; there must be 2 distinct parties i.e. a buyer and a seller, to affect a contract of sale
and they must be competent to contract. ‘Buyer’ means a person who buys or agrees to buy
goods. ‘Seller’ means a person who sells or agrees to sell goods.

Goods: There must be some goods the property in which is or is to be transferred from the
seller to the buyer. The goods which form the subject-matter of the contract of sale must be
movable.
Price: Price is an essential ingredient for all transactions of sale and in the absence of the price
or the consideration, the transfer is not regarded as a sale. The transfer by way of sale must be
in exchange for a price. It has been held that price normally means money. The price can be
paid fully in cash or it can be partly paid and partly promised to be paid in future. The price can
be fixed by the agreement between the parties before the conveyance of the property.

2. Conditions And Warranties:-

A Condition forms the core of the contract i.e., considered as an essential to the main purpose
of the contract. Therefore, the repercussion would be repudiation of the contract or claim for
damages or both depending upon the breach and case.

A breach of Warranty by one of the parties does not make the contract a contract voidable and
does not give any right to the non-defaulting party to repudiate the contract. The same position
is further, which provides that when there is a breach of warranty by the seller, this breach
does not provide the buyer with the right to breach the contract, he may only sue the seller for
breach of Warranty in diminution or extinction of the price.

EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONDITONS:

IMPLIED CONDITIONS: - The Sale of Goods Act enumerates an implied Warranty that the
buyer shall have complete possession of the goods sold to him and shall enjoy quite possession
of such goods. In case of any kind of disturbance, the buyer can sue the seller for the breach of
Warranty and can claim damages arising out of such breach.

EXPRESS CONDITION: - Express condition or warranty is a stipulation which has been

expressly stated in the terms of the contract and has been agreed by both the parties. It is usual
practice that parties to Contract of Sale expressly provide conditions and or warranties in their
contract.

CASE STUDY 1:

Bathroom city washed its hands of the problem

Simon Bell, of King’s Lynn, Norfolk, has been battling with Bathroom City, Birmingham, over a
cracked bathroom unit for six months after buying a shower tray, cabinet and basin in March.
The delivery did not turn up for a month, despite a promise that it would arrive within days. Mr.
Bell, left, who is a former heating and plumbing engineer, says:

“When the delivery was made I inspected the goods and could see nothing wrong. But because
the delivery was so late I missed my opportunity to fit it immediately.”
It wasn’t until a couple of days later that he noticed a “hairline crack” on the basin when he
took it out of the box. He sent a photograph of the damage to Bathroom City, which said that
there was nothing it could do because he had not reported it within two days of delivery. The
company also claimed that it did not look like a manufacturing fault but damage caused when
fitting the taps. However, Consumer Direct says that it is the duty of Bathroom City to prove
that it was not responsible; if it cannot, then the company owes Mr. Bell a replacement or
repair. Mr. Bell says:

“Bathroom City has refused to budge and my e-mails and letters have been ignored. I have
fitted many bathroom suites over the years and have never broken anything. What’s more, I
know that it is impossible to inflict this type of damage with modern taps.”

After being contacted by Times Money, Bathroom City offered to replace the basin as a
goodwill gesture, but maintains that it has “clear proof” that it did not damage the basin
because “Mr. Bell clearly states that when it was delivered he checked the goods over and
found no initial fault”.

ISSUES: Case of Damaged Bathroom Basin and not repairing and replacing it.

Bathroom city is denying for replacement to Mr. Bell for damaged basin.

Rules: He goods where not delivered as promised by the promise (the bathroom city)
which relates to stipulation as to time, in a contract of sale, stipulations other than those
relating to the time of payment are regarded as of the essence of the contract. Thus, if a time if
fixed for the delivery of goods, the delivery must be made at the fixed time; otherwise the
other party is entitled to put an end to the contract.

1. The mode of payment is not mentioned the given case

2. Lack of mutual consent

3. The bathroom city refused to respond to the e-mails and letters of Mr. Bell.

ANALYSIS: All the essential elements of the Sale of Goods Act are clearly present in the case
except for the price of the goods as mentioned in the answer to the previous question.

Two parties: there are 2 parties present here that is the buyer (Simon Bell) and the seller,
(Bathroom City, Birmingham)

Goods: The goods which should be transferred from the seller to the buyer are a shower tray,
cabinet and basin. These goods which form the subject-matter of the contract of sale are
movable.
Price: Though nothing about price or money is mentioned, it is obvious that a certain amount of
cash is paid, (naturally speaking) because the goods mentioned are not gifts and are brought
from the bathroom city by Mr. Simon Bell

Transfer of general property: the goods show the nature of general property.

Essential elements of a valid contract: the essential elements if a contract are present.

CONCLUSION: From the above case study we can conclude that a contract for the sale of
immovable property is a contract laying down that the ‘Sale’ of such property shall take place
on the terms settled between the parties in the said contract. Such contract for sale does not
create any interest in or charge on such immovable property. The contract for sale does not
result in any transfer of ownership. However a sort of obligation is created in respect of the
ownership of the property.

CASE STUDY 2:
THE PROBLEM OF BANNERMAN v. W.IIITE. There is one decision which has stood somewhat
outside the main current of events, but a discussion of which seems both important and appre
priate. The decision is that in Bannerman v. White (1861) a where the defendants bought a
large quantity of hops. But before they accepted the plaintiffs’ offer, they had inquired whether
sculpture had been used in the. Treatment of the hops, adding that if it had they would not
even ask the price. Although the plaintiffs answered (in the presence of six witnesses) that no
sculpture had been used at all it was later discovered that some had been used, though only in
the cultivation of five out of 800 acres. After delivery, the buyers resisted an action for the price
on the plea of non-assumpsit.‘ On these facts, Erle C.J. gave judgment for the buyers, saying,
inter alia: ‘‘ The undertaking [i.e., the sellers’ representation that no sculpture had been used]
was a preliminary stipulation; and if it had not been given the defendants would not have gone
on with the treaty which resulted in the sale. In this sense it was a condition upon which the
defendants contracted.” And he further said: ‘‘. . . the intention appears that the contract
should be null if sculpture had been used.” ’ Now counsel for the plaintiffs had strenuously
argued that, the hops having been delivered to the buyers, property had passed to them, and
that they could no longer reject the goods, or resist an action for the price, because of the
doctrine in Street v. Belay.“’ And so impressed, it would seem, was the learned judge by this
contention-which, on the face of it, seemed conclusive in favor of the sellers,-that he avoided
disposing of it in detail. Instead, he developed a novel line of reasoning in which “contractual
intention” became the vital test. Although the principle that emerges from Bannerman v. White
looks like yet another device to escape the consequences of Street v. Belay,” it also contains
some wider and more far-reaching implications. In the first place, every transaction might be
dealt with in accordance with the rather arbitrary and elusive canon of “intention.” Especially,
for example, where the seller gives warranty collateral in form, his statement .might easily is
regarded as the basis upon which the buyer makes the contract. In other words, the collateral
warranty, while merely giving rise to an action in damages under section 62.
Could thus be transformed into the most potent right of rejection under the principle of
Banneman v. White.

Right of rejection under the principle of Banneman v. White. In the second place, this type of
reasoning would, in effect, make nonsense of the whole structure of the law as developed in
the nineteenth century and as embodied in the Sale of Goods Act. For there would be little
point in talking about “ warranties ” or “ conditions,” or “ sale by description,” or “ sale of
specific chattels,” since everything could in final analysis be reduced to the notion of “ contra
namely that a ‘‘ stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract,”
assumes renewed significance. For every stipulation might be an ‘‘ overdoing condition,” if the
court holds it was so cc intended.” actual intention.”

Conclusion: Because of the diversity of the points and problems previously discussed, it
may be useful to state very briefly the main conclusions here arrived at.

1. The law of sale of goods is obviously in very great confusion and has no consistency
whatever. In its present state, the law provides for one and the same fact-situation different
legal principles giving rise to different legal consequences. By applying the appropriate
conceptual permutations, we may arrive at any result we wish.

2. As regards the nineteenth-century development, the core of the confusion can be traced
back to the legacy.

3. To understand the law of sale of goods, the law of warranty must first be grasped, especially
the question as to what may constitute a warranty.

4. Once the functions of the warranty are fully understood, the difficult problems concerning
‘‘sale by description” as well as ‘‘innocent misrepresentation” fall into perspective.

5. The many meanings which “condition” has acquired are almost all confusing. Its real meaning
should be one and only one, i.e., 8x1 operative fact or event upon which the performance of
the (buyer’s) promises (to pay or accept the goods) depends.