The forest and trees vested in the state under the act.

Under the contract Bhadri Prasad had not become the owner of the

trees as goods. The timber could be passed to Bhadri only when the trees are felled but before they were felled, trees had vested in the state. Under the terms of the contract, there was no sale of the whole of the trees[3], and, it had to be ascertained which trees fell within the description of trees which the appellant was entitled to cut.[4] Till that was done they were not ascertained goods within s. 19 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930. Even if the letter of Feb 1 could be treated as an offer, there was no unconditional acceptance of the offer, because, there was a reservation by the appellant of his right to claim refund in his letter dated 5th Feb and hence there was no concluded contract.