Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after variation of the contract for sale of newsprint, the property in the goods had passed to the buyers so as to entitle the seller to resell the goods under the Sale of Goods Act and recover deficiency on resale; and if not, what was the proper measure of damages for the buyers' refusal to accept delivery.
Analysis: The original arrangement related to specific goods in an identified stock, but the later oral variation substituted a bargain for a smaller quantity out of a larger mass of stock. From that point, the subject-matter became unascertained goods, and no property could pass until appropriation of the required quantity with the buyer's consent. As no portion of the stock was appropriated before resale, the seller did not acquire the statutory right of resale available to an unpaid seller where property has passed. The seller could, however, recover damages for breach on the ordinary contractual basis, namely the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of refusal to accept the goods.
Conclusion: The resale could not be treated as a valid resale under section 54(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the seller's recovery was confined to damages measured by the market price on the date of breach.