Implied warranty in sale of goods protects buyers where supplied goods for a known purpose prove latently defective.

Where asbestos sheets are supplied for a disclosed roofing purpose, Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act may imply a condition that the goods be reasonably fit for that purpose, especially where the buyer relies on the seller's skill and judgment. Persistent leakage caused by latent manufacturing defects can amount to breach of implied warranty, with merchantable quality understood to include freedom from such defects. Compensation may be claimed under Section 59 for the resulting loss. On jurisdiction, the cause of action was treated as arising where the goods were put to the disclosed purpose, supporting territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the buyer was entitled to relief for breach of implied warranty as to the quality and fitness of asbestos sheets supplied for roofing purposes; (ii) whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (i): whether the buyer was entitled to relief for breach of implied warranty as to the quality and fitness of asbestos sheets supplied for roofing purposes.

Analysis: The goods were ordered for a specific roofing purpose known to the seller, and the evidence showed persistent leakage caused by defects in manufacture rather than by structural defects or lack of ventilation. Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act was applied as an exception to caveat emptor, since the buyer relied on the seller's skill and judgment and the goods were required to be reasonably fit for the disclosed purpose. The court also treated merchantable quality as including freedom from latent defects and held that compensation could be awarded under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act for breach of the implied warranty.

Conclusion: The claim for damages for breach of implied warranty was maintainable and the decree for a part of the claim was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis: The defect became actionable only when the asbestos sheets were used at the theatre and the loss arose at the place where the goods were put to the disclosed purpose. The challenge to jurisdiction had not been pursued as a preliminary issue below, and there was no sufficient basis to dislodge the finding that the cause of action justified the trial court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The finding on territorial jurisdiction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the decree in favour of the respondent was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are supplied for a disclosed particular purpose and the evidence proves a latent manufacturing defect, Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act implies a condition of fitness and merchantable quality, and compensation may be awarded for the resulting breach.

---