Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7lawrelatingtosaleofgoods 111119235059 Phpapp01
7lawrelatingtosaleofgoods 111119235059 Phpapp01
Courts have decided : Even if the goods delivered can be sold only by infringing a
trade mark right of another, the seller has broken the condition that he had a right to
sell the goods
Niblet V. Confectioners Materials Co. ( 1921)
Defendants sold the plaintiffs 1000 cans of condensed milk in tins bearing
the label “ Nissly” Brand. Nestle Condensed Milk Co., then threatened legal
action for the infringement of their trade mark rights and took an
undertaking from the plaintiffs not to dispose of condensed milk with the
label “Nissly”.
In order to clear the goods from customs the plaintiffs had to remove the
labels. Unlabelled cans had to be sold at a much lower price. They sued
defendants for damages
Held : That the plaintiffs were entitle to damages. The court said that
defendants were not only obligated to pass good title but also should not
infringe a trade mark right which interfere with the sale of goods in the
normal course of business.
• B. Implied term as to quality of goods
2. Implied condition regarding description ( sec 14)
Where there is a contract sale of goods by
description, there is an implied condition that the
goods shall correspond with the description.
Goods are said to be sold by description when
they are described in the contract either by the
buyer or by the seller and the buyer contracts in
reliance of the description
In Re Moore & Co. and Landauer Co ( 1921)
M sold to L, 3100 cases of Australian Canned fruits, the cases to
contain 30 tins each. M delivered the total quantity, but about
half the cases contained 24 tins, and the rest 30 tins. L rejected
the goods. There was no difference in market value between
goods packed in 24 tins and goods packed in 30 tins. However,
the court held as the goods delivered did not correspond with
the description( packing) of those ordered, L could reject the
whole lot.
Beal vs. Taylor – Buyer purchased a car described as 1961 model.
The front part was pre 1961 model and it had welded to an old
car. Held that the goods did not comply with the description
• 3. Implied condition as to description and sample
( section 14)
• If the sale by sample as well as description it should
correspond to both.
• Nichol vs. Godts ( 1854)
• N agreed to sell G some oil described as
“ foreign refined rape oil” as per the sample. Although the
goods were as per the sample but it was not foreign refined
rape oil. Therefore buyer was entitled to reject the goods as
it should correspond not only with the sample but with the
description as well.
• 4. Implied condition regarding merchantable quality
• Where good are purchased from a seller who deals in
goods in that description ( whether he is a
manufacturer or not) there is an implied condition
that the goods should be of merchantable quality.
• In other words goods must be fit for the purpose for
which goods of that kind are commonly purchased
and it must be free from any defect which is not
apparent on the reasonable examination of the
goods
• Frost Vs. Aylesbury Dairy Co ( 1905)
• The diary milk sold was infected with typhoid
germ and a consumer died of consuming it.
The Diary proved that they have taken all
possible and reasonable precautions in the
manufacturing process to ensure its safety for
consumption. But court held that the seller is
liable to pay damages as the milk was not in
merchantable quality.
• Thornett and Fehr Vs. Beers Son ( 1919)
• When a buyer is given the opportunity to inspect the product and
such inspection would have revealed the status and the buyer fails to
do so then the implied condition cannot be relied upon by the buyer.