https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290402 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. en-us Wed, 18 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290402 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290402