Unpaid seller's right to damages on resale requires prior notice of intended resale; buyer's denial of contract does not waive it.

An unpaid seller who resells goods under Section 54(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 must prove notice to the buyer of the intended resale before claiming damages for the resale. A notice demanding delivery or payment, without warning that the goods will be resold, is insufficient, and a later notice stating that resale has already taken place does not cure the defect. The buyer's denial of the contract does not dispense with this statutory requirement. Where the seller retains possession of ascertained goods as unpaid seller's lien, the price of goods actually delivered remains recoverable with interest, but damages for goods resold without notice are not.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seller had given notice to the buyer of his intention to resell the goods so as to entitle him to damages under Section 54(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. (ii) Whether the seller was exercising his unpaid seller's lien and could, despite the buyer's false denial of contract and the alternative remedy under Section 55, recover damages for the loss caused by resale of the goods without notice.

Issue (i): Whether the seller had given notice to the buyer of his intention to resell the goods so as to entitle him to damages under Section 54(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Analysis: The evidence showed a notice calling upon the buyer to take delivery or pay damages, but it contained no intimation that the goods would be resold if delivery was not taken. A later notice only stated that resale had already occurred. The seller's assertion that he had warned the buyer in writing was unsupported, and his witness on the point was contradicted. Oral notice was also denied. On the record, no notice of intended resale was proved.

Conclusion: No notice of intended resale was given, and the seller could not recover damages in respect of the goods resold.

Issue (ii): Whether the seller was exercising his unpaid seller's lien and could, despite the buyer's false denial of contract and the alternative remedy under Section 55, recover damages for the loss caused by resale of the goods without notice.

Analysis: The goods were ascertained and in a deliverable state, so property passed on contract while the seller retained possession of the unsold balance until payment. That retention amounted to an unpaid seller's lien under Section 47, making Section 54(2) applicable. The buyer's denial of the contract did not remove the seller's statutory rights. Although the seller could alternatively sue for the price under Section 55, that was not the basis on which the suit was framed. Accordingly, damages could not be claimed for the 57 thans sold without notice, but the price of the 10 thans admittedly delivered remained recoverable with interest.

Conclusion: The seller's lien and the resale provisions applied, but damages for the 57 thans were barred for want of notice; the seller was entitled only to the price of the 10 thans and corresponding interest.

Final Conclusion: The decree was modified so that the buyer remained liable only for the value of the goods admittedly taken under the contract, with interest, and not for damages on the resale of the remaining goods.

Ratio Decidendi: An unpaid seller who resells goods under Section 54(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 cannot recover damages unless he proves notice to the buyer of his intention to resell; the buyer's denial of the contract does not defeat that statutory condition, and the seller's alternative right to sue for price must be specifically pursued.

---