CASE LAWS ON SECTION 44 OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930

Section 44 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930:

When the seller is ready and willing to deliver the goods and requests the buyer to
take delivery, and the buyer does not within a reasonable time after such request take
delivery of the goods, he is liable to the seller for any loss occasioned by his neglect
or refusal to take delivery and also for a reasonable charge for the care and custody
of the goods:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of the seller where the
neglect or refusal of the buyer to take delivery amounts to a repudiation of the
contract.

Case Laws

Harlow and Jones Ltd v Panex International Ltd, (1967) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509, p 531

Lord Ellen borough observed that : If the buyer does not carry away the goods bought
within a reasonable time, the seller may charge him warehouse room; or he may bring an
action for not removing them, should he be prejudiced by the delay. An arrangement by
which the seller had agreed with the person from whom he had himself bought the goods
that he would be liable to pay storage charges only to the extent that he could recover from
the buyer would not preclude such seller from claiming storage charges.

Endupuni Narsimham v Mahadevram Udimiram, AIR 1974 Ori 98

In this case, it was held that the seller must be ready and willing to deliver the entire goods
and not part of the goods.

Further, through the cases of Greaves v Ashlin, (1813) 3 Camp 426 : 14 RR 471; Penarth
Dock Engineering Co v Pounds, (1963) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359, p 361; and Strand Electric
and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainment Ltd, (1952) 1 All ER 796 (CA), it has
been established that the buyer’s neglect does not entitle the seller to put an end to the
contract.

Somes v. British Empire Co, (1860) 8 HLC 338, p 344

(Corresponding Indian Case Law: :Probhu Narayan Sankarlal v. Union of India (UOI),
AIR 1961 Pat 119 )

In this case, it was held that for Section 44 to apply,, it is necessary that the property should
have passed, and the seller should claim no lien.
Subsequently in the case of Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenhaim, (1950) 1 All ER 420
(CA), it was clarified that the seller’s request must be for the buyer not to accept, but to take
delivery. A mere delay by the buyer in taking delivery does not entitle the seller to rescind
the contract, unless indeed the date at which he is to do so is the essence of the contract.
Where the time of delivery is postponed by the seller at the request of the buyer, and no
period of postponement is fixed, the seller may give notice to the buyer, requesting him to
take delivery of the goods within a reasonable time and the buyer must then take delivery
within that time.
Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. Chakolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., 2008
SCC OnLine Bom 1199

In this case, the plaintiffs were selling cotton to textile mills and the defendants did not take
delivery of the shipment. This caused a loss to the plaintiff as they had to move and store the
cotton out of their own pockets.

“The plaintiffs, as the party who suffered the breach committed by the defendants, would
have to show the expenses incurred in clearance and storage of the goods as those which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach being the Dock charges paid
by them under the Dock documents, Exhibits R, S & T (collectively) and reasonable charge
for the care and custody of the goods as specified in section 44 of the Sale of Goods Act.
The defendants are required to pay all the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for clearance
of the goods at the Docks.”

Bungo Steel Furniture (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1967) 1 SCR 633

“This section does not apply to the present case because the bins were not manufactured
and the property could not have passed to the Government. But the appellant was entitled to
claim damages for the wrongful cancellation of the balance 2528 bins by the Government
and for non-acceptance of the 2528 bins under Section 56 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act.”