MZUMBE UNIVERSITY MBEYA CAMPUS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

NAME OF STUDENT HUSNA SADRU KIOBYA

REGISTRATION NO 31305179/T.15

COURSE NAME LLB II

SUBJECT NAME SALE OF GOODS AND AGENCY

CODE NUMBER LAW 350

COURSE INSTRUCTOR MR. F. MCHOMVU

SUBMISSION DATE 04/06/2018

QUESTION;-

Chaurembo Kidosho is a third year student pursuing Bachelor of Human Resources Management
at Mzumbe University – Mbeya Campus College (MU-MCC). She recently, went to Game Super
Market located at Mlimani City (Dar es Salaam) and bought the following items, namely: One
LG television set, one dark skirt and some bottles of soft drinks. She paid a total of Tshs
5,000,000 for all the items and was accordingly given the EFD receipts to evidence the purchase
as per the law.
However, upon reaching home, she realized that the skirt that she had bought was a wrong size.
This is because; when she was picking it she was in a hurry as she was having a dinner party that
night. She returned it after two days but the seller refused to accept it on the ground that once
goods are sold from their shop they are not returnable. On the other hand and upon arriving in
Mbeya, she noticed that the TV does not work but because of the pressures of end of semester
exams and other issues that she was handling, she only managed to return it to the seller 12
months later. The seller also refused to accept the TV on the same ground as for the skirt.

The confused Kidosho learns that you are a business law expert. She approaches you and needs
your advice on whether she is legally entitled to return the two items to the seller. Advise her
accordingly. Support your answer with relevant authorities and arguments.
The seller has the duty to deliver the goods to the buyer who shall accept and pay for, in
accordance with the terms of the contract of sale1, payment and delivery are concurrent
conditions unless agreed by the parties2. Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything
which the parties agree or which has the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer,
but concern to matter in question only deals with actual delivery as physical delivery of goods
made by the buyer to seller3. As from the scenario the Game Super Market (seller) or physical
deliver the goods to Chaurembo Kidosho (buyer).

By virtue of section 36(1)4 it is provided for how Chaurembo had a right to examine the goods
that “where the goods are delivered to the buyer which has he has not previously examined, is
not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he had an opportunity to of examining
them”. Again subsection (2) “provides that on the request buyer ought to be given an
opportunity to inspect the goods”. A reiteration as in the case of Dharam Pal & Co. Agrav K.G
Ram Chandra Rao &Co5, it was held that “when a seller deliver the goods to the buyer at that
time he is responsible to provide opportunity to examine the goods to the buyer”. Remarking to
the scenario Chaurembo had a good opportunity to examine the items when she was in the
supermarket but due to hurry failed to do that she was ought to do as a buyer. The law has made
this right of examining the goods delivered to Chaurembo by Game supermarket, because it
gives a room for Chaurembo to make ascertainment to the goods if they conform to the contract
agreed upon. And for this reason acceptance is not complete until the buyer has opportunity to
refuse to take deliver and the buyer is given an opportunity to reject the goods provided if they
are not conformity with the contract. Therefore return of the skirt shall remain discretion of
Game supermarket as a seller, because Chaurembo failed to do what she is required to do legally.

For the case LG TV, as it was noted above that where goods are delivered to the buyer be it by
any form of delivery, which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted
them unless and until he had reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of
ascertaining them6. Therefore acceptance of goods will be deemed to arise if only; he has not

1
Section 29 0f the sales of Goods Act Cap 214
2
Ibid, Section 30; See the case of Visihnu Sugar Ltd V Food Corporation of India.
3
Galbraith & grant ltd v block case.
4
Sales of goods Act cap 214,
5
(1975) AIR 238
6
Section 36 (1), Cap 214 RE 2002
exercised his rights to examine them within a reasonable time even after delivery 7. Remarking to
the scenario, Chaurembo though she did not previously examine the LG, TV for the either reason
of her because she was in a hurry, or because TV sets are sold in a sample mode which she
believe the same could confirm to the sample, be it for any reason she did not bother to open the
box. Still she could not have been denied the right to return the defaulted TV set, if she could
have exercised the duty to inform the seller that she has not accepted the goods delivered to him
within a reasonable time. It is here by legally well known that acceptance of goods delivered will
arise if within lapse of reasonable time; Chaurembo retains the goods without notifying Game
supermarket about her refusal to accept the goods. In Handy Mohanlal Maniklal v Dhirubhan
Bahauji Bhai8, It was held inta alia that parties by an agreement can ascertain the period of
limitation within which buyer has to decide whether he accepts or rejects the goods, and when
there is limitation no such limit fixed in the case after expiry of reasonable time, if the buyer
does not intimate his intention to reject the goods, it will amount that had accepted the goods.
For this reason Chaurembo will be denied to return the LG TV set back to Game supermarket

7
Ibid, section 37
8
AIR 1962 Guj 56
REFERENCES

STATUTES

Indian Sales Of Goods Act No. III of 1930

The Sale of Goods Act, Cap 214 RE 2002

CASES

Mohanlal Maniklal v Dhirubhan Bahauji Bhai [1962] AIR Guj 56

Dharam Pal & Co. Agrav K.G Ram Chandra Rao &Co, (1975) AIR 238