goods” according to the definition given in sub-section (14) of Section 2 of
the Act, means “goods identified and agreed upon at the time a contract for
sale is made”.
Gani Vs. Rahmania Trading (1958) 10 DLR 348=8 PLR (Dac.) 576.
option either to waive the condition in a contract the breach of which entitles
him to treat the contract as repudiated or he may treat such a breach as breach
of warranty and stick to the bargain with a right to claim damages. Ibid.
section does not contemplate the case of a seller failing to tender delivery of
option of treating a breach of a condition in a contract as a breach of
sub-section (1) and the first part of sub-sec. (2) of section 13 are based on
the same principle which gives the buyer the option of treating a breach of a
condition in a contract to be fulfilled by the seller as a breach of warranty.
In the one case he exercises his option by express words and in the other law
presumes exercise of the option from his conduct. Ibid.
on a contract of sale.
was no provision in the Sale of Goods Act bearing on the effect of fraud,
misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence on a contract of sale.
Therefore, the relevant provisions of the Contract
on these questions continued to be applicable to contracts of sale despite the
provisions of section 13, Sale of Goods Act. That section also did not contain
any reference to cases of fraud, etc., and apparently contemplated such cases
as involved a breach of condition, without fraud, misrepresentation and the
like- affecting the formation of the contract itself in its inception. If thus
interpreted, there was no difficulty in holding that section 19, Contract Act,
could stand with section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act. The result was that in
cases of fraud and misrepresentation etc., vitiating the contract unless there
was a waiver on the part of the party affected, the right of reels ion was not
the remedy of rescission of the contract was open to the respondent in the
present case on the condition that restitution
in integrum took place in a just manner. PLR. (1960) (WP) 524.
33, 36(2)—Sellers were bound to make delivery within a reasonable time.
the term “f.o.r” and it’s necessary implication, there were no terms expressed
in contract fixing either the time for
delivery or the time for payment. It necessarily follows from the statutory
provisions contained in sections 32, 35, 36(2) of the Act that the sellers were
hound to make delivery within a reasonable time, subject to the feasibility of
obtaining wagons and the buyer was to make payment concurrently with those
Gupta Chowdhury Vs. Jagannath Rice Mills (1951) 3 DLR 23.
Effect of contract for sale on goods— For enforcement of such contract goods—i
must be specific and in a deliverable state.
order to pass title from the seller to the buyer goods must he specific and in
a deliverable state. If these two conditions are not fulfilled then the title
to the goods does not pass by the contract.
to the goods will pass from the seller to the buyer (irrespective of the time
of payment of price or the time of delivery) when there is unconditional
contract for sale of goods, which are identified and agreed upon at the time of
the contract and are in deliverable state.
Mercantile Corps. Vs. Madan Mohan Oil Mills (1966) 18 DLR 487.
the sale of moveable property
is that the purchaser has become the owner when the contract is made.
property in the goods continued to vest in the owner, there could be no
question of the hire-purchaser having a right to any part of the sale proceeds.
Moreover, the goods in question being moves property, the ordinary presumption
would be that she property in the apparatus passed to the alleged
hire-purchaser when the contract was made, it being immaterial whether the time
of payment of the price was postponed beyond the date of the contract.
20 of the Sale of Goods Act embodies a principle which may be extended to cover
a case where there are terms in the contract which purport retain ownership in
the vendor until the fulfillment of a certain condition relating to the price,
alongside with other conditions from which an equally clear conclusion may be
drawn that ownership in the odds became vested in the vendee upon the making of
Vs. Arobinda Poddar (1961) 13 DIR (SC) 141.
S. 20. Sale of
goods affected not by free agreement between the parties, but under the orders
of the Government—Date of such sale is not the date when rods were delivered
but the date when Government order were received and invoices delivered for
becomes payable when invoices arc delivered and since the Pakistan General
Sales-tax Act which imposes the liability to sale-tax came into force on 1448,
no sales tax becomes due in respect of sales of goods for which invoices, in
the manner referred above, were delivered before 1.4.48.
legally passed to the defendant from the date of delivery of invoices though
goods were not actually delivered then.
M/S Hanif vs. Mohini Mills (1964) 16 DLR 135.
re-submission as per instructions” explained—
receipt of invoices by the defendant the latter sent back the same to the
plaintiff with respect “for re-submission as per instructions” and it was
thereupon contended that the date of re-submission should be the date on which
the invoices should be treated as being sent to the defendant.
expression used in the letter “for resubmission as per instructions” does not
constitute a refusal, rather it means that the defendant accepted the goods hut
the invoices should have been submitted as per instructions given by the
S. 20: Goods in
the present case, the subject- matter of the suit, had been purchased and not
merely agreed to be purchased by the defendant. The mere fact that the
plaintiff complained about procrastination of wcighment by the defendant does
not change the nature of the transaction. In the present case the goods
remained with the seller after they were approved and sold and therefore
necessity was felt of satisfying the buyers that they had not been tampered
with when they had remained in possession with the seller.
Ltd. V.s. Messrs. Muhammad Ismail, (1968) 20 DLR (WP) 242.
S. 34. Effect
of part delivery of goods—
a part delivery of the goods is made in progress of delivery of the whole, the
first delivery will have the effect of passing the property in such goods as
the delivery of whole, hut the delivery of a part of the goods with an
intention of severing it from the whole, does not operate as delivery of the
remainder or in other words, does not pass any title in the remainder to the
buyer. The word “whole” in this section means the goods identified in terms of
section 20 of the Act.
Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR 437.
S. 37(I). Delivery of
lesser quantity of goods—Buyer can either accept it or he can reject it-If he
accepts, he will have to pay for it at the contract rate.
Gani Vs. Rahmania Trading (1958) 10 DLR 348.
follows that when the part which was not tendered previously is tendered
afterwards it cannot be referred back to any subsisting contract between the
buyer and the seller.
and 38 (1)—When a part of the goods contracted to be sold is offered and
accepted by the buyer, he is not bound to accept the remaining part when
offered later on. Ibid.
Provisions of the section explained—
39 of the Sale of Goods Act merely contemplates that prima facie the seller
discharges his duties as soon as he delivers the goods to a carrier for the
purpose of transmission to the buyer or he delivers the goods to a wharfinger
for safe custody. In such cases under section 39 of the Sale 01 Goods Act the
buyer may decline to treat the delivery to a common carrier or wharfinger as a
delivery to the buyer himself. Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act will assume
importance if a dispute is raised with regard to passing of title from the
seller to the buyer or if any risk is involved after the delivery of the goods
by the seller to a common carrier or wharfinger. In the present case no such
dispute has been raised by either party.
Brothers Vs. Abul Lais, (1973) 35 DLR 99.
Ss. 46 (1)
(c) and 56 : So far as the right of unpaid seller is concerned it is the
quantum of damages for non-acceptance of goods property in which already passed
to buyer—Measure of damages is the difference between the contract price anti
the market price as prevailed on the date when non- acceptance took place.
Ltd Vs. Messrs Muhammad Ismail (1968) 20 DLR (WP) 242.
60 of the Sale of Goods Act avoids the difficulties wrapped up in the phrase
“an anticipatory breach.”
Tarain Ch. Gupta
Chowdhury Vs. Jagannalh Rice Mills (1951) 3 DLR 23.
Awarding of interest to a seller—No interest payable on damage for breach of
(2) of section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act empowers the Court to award interest
to seller for the price of his goods at such rate as it thinks fit. Under this
section a party, however, cannot claim interest on damages for breach of a
A. Z. Co.
Vs. S. Maula Bakhsh (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 405.