Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Landmark Cases
| Case Name | Section | Rule(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Couturier v Hastie | 7 | Goods must exist at time of contract; if already destroyed, contract is void | In this case, a cargo of corn was sold while it was believed to be in transit. Unknown to both parties, the corn had already been sold due to damage before the contract. The buyer refused to pay when he learned this. The court held that since the goods did not exist at the time of contract, the agreement was void. This case explains that a contract cannot exist if the subject matter is already destroyed. It shows the importance of existence of goods at the time of sale. |
| Howell v Coupland | 8 | Future goods perishing makes contract void | The contract was for sale of potatoes grown on a specific land. Due to disease, the crop failed. The seller could not deliver the goods. The buyer sued for damages. The court held that since the goods were dependent on a specific source and that source failed, the contract became void. This case explains that if goods perish before delivery without fault, the contract ends. |
| Varley v Whipp | 15 | Goods must match description | The buyer agreed to buy a machine based only on description. When delivered, the machine was old and not as described. The buyer rejected it. The court held that the seller must supply goods exactly as described. This case shows that even if the buyer has not seen the goods, description must be correct. |
| Grant v Australian Knitting Mills | 16 | Goods must be fit for purpose and of good quality | The buyer purchased woollen underwear from a retailer. After wearing it, he suffered skin disease due to chemicals left in the cloth. The court held that the goods were not fit for use and not of good quality. The seller was liable. This case explains the duty of seller to provide safe and usable goods. |
| Godley v Perry | 17 | Goods must match sample and be safe | A shopkeeper bought toy catapults based on sample. One catapult broke and injured a child. The shopkeeper was held liable but recovered loss from seller. The court held that goods must match sample and be safe. This case shows responsibility even when goods are bought based on sample. |
| Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd | 18 | Property passes when parties intend | Goods were packed and ready but not yet delivered to carrier. The seller became insolvent. The buyer claimed ownership. The court held that ownership had not yet passed. This case explains that intention of parties decides when ownership passes. |
| Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd | 25 | Seller can retain ownership until payment | The seller supplied aluminium sheets with a clause that ownership stays with seller until full payment. Buyer used goods and became insolvent. The seller claimed goods. The court upheld the clause. This case shows that seller can protect ownership till payment is complete. |
| Rowland v Divall | 14, 27 | Seller must have right to sell; buyer gets refund if title fails | The buyer purchased a car and used it for months. Later it was found that the seller had no ownership. The buyer had to return the car. The court held that buyer could recover full price. This case shows that seller must have proper ownership. |
| Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden | 26 | Risk passes with ownership unless delay by buyer | The buyer delayed taking delivery of apple juice. During delay, goods spoiled. The court held that risk had passed to buyer due to delay. This case shows that delay can shift risk even if ownership not passed. |
| Ward v Bignall | 21 | Ownership passes only after goods are ready | The contract was for sale of two cars, but only one was delivered. The buyer refused to accept one. The court held that property had not passed for both goods. This case shows that goods must be in deliverable state. |
| Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd | 23 | Ownership passes only when goods are identified | Customers paid for gold but the gold was not separated or identified. The company became insolvent. Customers claimed ownership. The court held no ownership passed. This case shows that unascertained goods must be clearly identified. |
| Nemo Dat Rule Case (Rowland v Divall) | 27 | No one can give better title than he has | This case again confirms that if seller is not owner, buyer gets no ownership. Even if buyer is honest, he must return goods. The court protects true owner. This rule is very important in sale law. |
| Lickbarrow v Mason | 46 | Unpaid seller has right of stoppage in transit | Goods were shipped but buyer became insolvent before delivery. Seller stopped goods during transit. The court upheld seller’s right. This case explains protection given to unpaid seller. |
| Hadley v Baxendale | 56 | Damages only for expected (foreseeable) loss | A mill owner suffered loss due to delay in delivery of a shaft. The court held that damages can be claimed only for losses that both parties could expect. This case explains limit of compensation. |
| Beswick v Beswick | 52 | Court can order actual performance in some cases | An agreement required payment to a widow after death of a person. Payment was not made. Court ordered performance of promise. This case shows that court may enforce actual delivery or performance. |
| Maple Flock Co Ltd v Universal Furniture Products | 39 | Instalment delivery breach depends on seriousness | The contract required delivery in parts. One delivery was defective. The buyer tried to cancel whole contract. The court held that only serious breach allows cancellation. This case explains when instalment breach matters. |
Case Name
Couturier v Hastie
Section
7
Rule(s)
Goods must exist at time of contract; if already destroyed, contract is void
Case Brief
In this case, a cargo of corn was sold while it was believed to be in transit. Unknown to both parties, the corn had already been sold due to damage before the contract. The buyer refused to pay when he learned this. The court held that since the goods did not exist at the time of contract, the agreement was void. This case explains that a contract cannot exist if the subject matter is already destroyed. It shows the importance of existence of goods at the time of sale.
Case Name
Howell v Coupland
Section
8
Rule(s)
Future goods perishing makes contract void
Case Brief
The contract was for sale of potatoes grown on a specific land. Due to disease, the crop failed. The seller could not deliver the goods. The buyer sued for damages. The court held that since the goods were dependent on a specific source and that source failed, the contract became void. This case explains that if goods perish before delivery without fault, the contract ends.
Case Name
Varley v Whipp
Section
15
Rule(s)
Goods must match description
Case Brief
The buyer agreed to buy a machine based only on description. When delivered, the machine was old and not as described. The buyer rejected it. The court held that the seller must supply goods exactly as described. This case shows that even if the buyer has not seen the goods, description must be correct.
Case Name
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Section
16
Rule(s)
Goods must be fit for purpose and of good quality
Case Brief
The buyer purchased woollen underwear from a retailer. After wearing it, he suffered skin disease due to chemicals left in the cloth. The court held that the goods were not fit for use and not of good quality. The seller was liable. This case explains the duty of seller to provide safe and usable goods.
Case Name
Godley v Perry
Section
17
Rule(s)
Goods must match sample and be safe
Case Brief
A shopkeeper bought toy catapults based on sample. One catapult broke and injured a child. The shopkeeper was held liable but recovered loss from seller. The court held that goods must match sample and be safe. This case shows responsibility even when goods are bought based on sample.
Case Name
Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd
Section
18
Rule(s)
Property passes when parties intend
Case Brief
Goods were packed and ready but not yet delivered to carrier. The seller became insolvent. The buyer claimed ownership. The court held that ownership had not yet passed. This case explains that intention of parties decides when ownership passes.
Case Name
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
Section
25
Rule(s)
Seller can retain ownership until payment
Case Brief
The seller supplied aluminium sheets with a clause that ownership stays with seller until full payment. Buyer used goods and became insolvent. The seller claimed goods. The court upheld the clause. This case shows that seller can protect ownership till payment is complete.
Case Name
Rowland v Divall
Section
14, 27
Rule(s)
Seller must have right to sell; buyer gets refund if title fails
Case Brief
The buyer purchased a car and used it for months. Later it was found that the seller had no ownership. The buyer had to return the car. The court held that buyer could recover full price. This case shows that seller must have proper ownership.
Case Name
Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden
Section
26
Rule(s)
Risk passes with ownership unless delay by buyer
Case Brief
The buyer delayed taking delivery of apple juice. During delay, goods spoiled. The court held that risk had passed to buyer due to delay. This case shows that delay can shift risk even if ownership not passed.
Case Name
Ward v Bignall
Section
21
Rule(s)
Ownership passes only after goods are ready
Case Brief
The contract was for sale of two cars, but only one was delivered. The buyer refused to accept one. The court held that property had not passed for both goods. This case shows that goods must be in deliverable state.
Case Name
Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
Section
23
Rule(s)
Ownership passes only when goods are identified
Case Brief
Customers paid for gold but the gold was not separated or identified. The company became insolvent. Customers claimed ownership. The court held no ownership passed. This case shows that unascertained goods must be clearly identified.
Case Name
Nemo Dat Rule Case (Rowland v Divall)
Section
27
Rule(s)
No one can give better title than he has
Case Brief
This case again confirms that if seller is not owner, buyer gets no ownership. Even if buyer is honest, he must return goods. The court protects true owner. This rule is very important in sale law.
Case Name
Lickbarrow v Mason
Section
46
Rule(s)
Unpaid seller has right of stoppage in transit
Case Brief
Goods were shipped but buyer became insolvent before delivery. Seller stopped goods during transit. The court upheld seller’s right. This case explains protection given to unpaid seller.
Case Name
Hadley v Baxendale
Section
56
Rule(s)
Damages only for expected (foreseeable) loss
Case Brief
A mill owner suffered loss due to delay in delivery of a shaft. The court held that damages can be claimed only for losses that both parties could expect. This case explains limit of compensation.
Case Name
Beswick v Beswick
Section
52
Rule(s)
Court can order actual performance in some cases
Case Brief
An agreement required payment to a widow after death of a person. Payment was not made. Court ordered performance of promise. This case shows that court may enforce actual delivery or performance.
Case Name
Maple Flock Co Ltd v Universal Furniture Products
Section
39
Rule(s)
Instalment delivery breach depends on seriousness
Case Brief
The contract required delivery in parts. One delivery was defective. The buyer tried to cancel whole contract. The court held that only serious breach allows cancellation. This case explains when instalment breach matters.