ABSTRACT

1. Cehave N.V. v. Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH; the Hansa Nord

[1976] Q.B. 44.

Summary of the fact:

A written contract to sell fruit pellets contained the express stipulation, “shipment to be made in
good condition.” In fact, some of the pellets were not in good condition when shipped. However,
they were, on arrival, still fit to be used for the purpose the buyer had intended and although they
were worth less than they should have been, they could still have been re- sold at a reduced price.
Issue: 1.Whether there is a breach of condition? 2.Whether the buyer is entitled to repudiate the
contract and reject the goods?

Decision:

It was held that there was no breach of condition and the buyer was not entitled to repudiate the
contract and to reject the goods. But the buyer is entitled to damages.

2. Rowland v. Divall

[1923] 2 K.B. 500.

Summary of fact:

Rowland bought a motor-car from Divall and used it for four months. Divall had no title to the
car, and consequently Rowland had to surrender it to the true owner. Rowland sued to recover
the total purchase price he had paid to Divall. Issue: 1.Whether there is a breach of condition?
2.Whether the buyer is entitled to recover the total purchase price?

Decision: It was held that there is a breach of implied condition as to title by the seller and
therefore the buyer is entitled to recover the purchase price in full, notwithstanding that he used
the car for four months.

3. Beale v. Taylor

[1967] 1 W.L.R. 1193.

Summary of the fact:

A buyer responded to an advertisement describing a car for sale as a “1961” model. He inspected
the car before buying it. After buying it he discovered that the car consisted of half a 1961 model
and half of an earlier car. Issue: 1.Whether there was a breach of implied condition as to
description? 2.Whether the buyer was entitled to reject the car?
Decision:

It was held that the seller was liable for breach of condition as to description and the buyer is
entitled to reject the goods thereby.

4. Nichol v. Godts

(1854) 10 Ex. 191

Summary of the Fact:

Nichol agreed to sell to Godts some oil described as “foreign refined rape oil, warranted only
equal to sample.” Nichol delivered oil equal to the quality of the samples, but which was not
“foreign refined rape oil.” Issue: 1.Whether a breach of condition has occurred? 2.Whether the
buyer is entitled to refuse the goods?

Decision:

It was held that breach of condition occurred and Godts could refuse to accept the goods.

5. Re Moore & Co. v. Landauer & Co.

[1921] 2 K.B. 519

Summary of Fact:

Moore sold to Landauer 3,100 cases of Australian canned fruits, the cases to contain 30 tins
each. Moore delivered the total quantity, but about half the cases contained 24 tins, and the
remainder 30 tins. Landauer rejected the goods. There was no difference in market value
between goods packed 24 tins and goods packed 30 tins to the case. Issue: 1.Whether a breach of
condition has occurred? 2.whether the buyer is entitled to reject the goods/

Decision: It was held that Landauer could reject the whole goods as there was a breach of
condition.

Submitted by :-

Mohit Jain

18LLB101