Merchantable quality in sale by description fails where the buyer delays inspection and cannot prove defects at delivery.

In a sale by description under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the buyer had to prove that the goods failed to conform to the contractual description or the implied condition of merchantable quality at the time of delivery, and that burden was not discharged here. The Court found no sufficient evidence that the skins were of a different quality or unfit for the purpose for which they were bought. Applying Section 16(2), it also held that a buyer who had a reasonable opportunity to inspect but did not timely reject the goods could not sustain a claim for damages on defects that should have been revealed by inspection. The appeal succeeded, the decree for the plaintiffs was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods sold answered the contractual description and satisfied the implied condition of merchantable quality; (ii) Whether the buyer, having had an opportunity to inspect and having taken delivery without timely rejection, could still maintain a claim for damages.

Issue (i): Whether the goods sold answered the contractual description and satisfied the implied condition of merchantable quality.

Analysis: The contract was treated as a sale by description under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Court examined whether the expressions used in the sold notes, including the quality description, created an objective standard that the goods failed to meet. It held that the plaintiffs did not prove that the skins were not of the described quality or that the alleged defects necessarily existed at the time of delivery. The evidence also did not establish that the goods were not fit for the purposes for which they were bought.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish breach of the condition as to description or merchantable quality.

Issue (ii): Whether the buyer, having had an opportunity to inspect and having taken delivery without timely rejection, could still maintain a claim for damages.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 16(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was applied to hold that where the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as to defects which such examination ought to have revealed. The Court found that the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to inspect, did not avail himself of it effectively, and delayed complaint and survey beyond a reasonable time. On those facts, the defects could not be attributed with certainty to the seller at the time of delivery.

Conclusion: The buyer was not entitled to reject the goods or recover damages on the facts proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sale of goods by description, a buyer seeking damages must prove that the goods did not conform to the description or merchantable quality at the time of delivery, and a delayed or ineffective inspection will defeat the claim where the alleged defects are not shown to be attributable to the seller.

---