https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290401 A buyer who validly rejects goods that do not answer the contractual description cannot later treat the same goods as accepted and claim damages on a breach of warranty basis. The Madras HC noted that once the non-conforming goods were rejected and the rejection was accepted, title revested in the seller, leaving the buyer to pursue the alternative remedy of damages for non-delivery, not the inconsistent remedy reserved for accepted goods. The court held that remedies under the Sale of Goods Act are mutually exclusive, so a counterclaim framed on rejection and an alleged repurchase agreement could not be shifted in appeal to an acceptance-and-warranty theory. The counterclaim was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:50:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290401 A buyer who validly rejects goods that do not answer the contractual description cannot later treat the same goods as accepted and claim damages on a breach of warranty basis. The Madras HC noted that once the non-conforming goods were rejected and the rejection was accepted, title revested in the seller, leaving the buyer to pursue the alternative remedy of damages for non-delivery, not the inconsistent remedy reserved for accepted goods. The court held that remedies under the Sale of Goods Act are mutually exclusive, so a counterclaim framed on rejection and an alleged repurchase agreement could not be shifted in appeal to an acceptance-and-warranty theory. The counterclaim was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290401