Tutorial 7 Sale of Goods Act 1957

1. Explain whether the following transactions fall under the Sales of Goods Act 1957:

(a) Ahmad agrees to exchange his pen for Thomas’ watch.

● Section 2 is satisfied because the transaction is movable goods
● Section 4 is not satisfied because there is no price
(b) Jenny agrees to sell her house to George for RM 200,000.
● Section 2 is not satisfied because the house is not a movable goods.
● Section 4 is satisfied because there involves a selling price of RM200,000
(c) Frank agrees to buy shares in ABC Sdn. Bhd. from Sam for RM 10,000.
● Section 2 is not satisfied because the transaction is not under movable goods.
● Section 4 is satisfied because there is involves price of RM10,000.
(d) Tan wants to buy a TV set from Fella Design for RM 2,000 to be paid over a
twelve (12) months period by equal instalments.
● Section 2 is satisfied because TV set is a movable goods.
● Section 4 is satisfied because there involves selling price of RM2,000.
● S5 SOGA- allows payment made by instalment.

2. In the following situations, explain with reference to the relevant sections in the Sales
of Goods Act 1957 when property will pass to the buyer: (Pg 15-17)

(i) Mei agrees to buy Sally bicycle & Sally agrees that Mei would pay by next
month. S 19/ S 20

● Discus section 20
● Conclusion, the property is passed to Mei immediately at the time the contract
is made.

(ii) Lai agrees to buy Yin’s car on the condition that Yin gives her car a new coat
of paint.

● Discuss section 21
● Conclusion, the property of car is passed only after the car has been painted
with a new coat and Lai has been notified of the same.

(iii) The vegetable seller agrees to sell all the vegetables in the basket to Chin at
RM3.00 per kilogram.

● Discuss section 22
● Conclusion, property of the vegetable does not pass until the vegetable has
been weighed and the buyer has been informed of the same.
3. (a) Naomi is a professional model and she needs to use make up which is suitable for
her sensitive skin. She went to a cosmetics shop owned by Jade and informed
Jade that she wanted to buy make-up which was suitable for her sensitive skin.
Jade recommended a certain brand of make-up to Naomi, saying that it was
suitable for her sensitive skin. Naomi bought the make-up and started using it. A
few days later, Naomi’s skin broke out in rashes and she sought medical
treatment. She was informed that the make-up that she bought from Jade was
not suitable for her skin. Advise Naomi. (Pg 10)

● According to S.16(1)(a) SOGA 1957, there is an implied condition that goods are
reasonably fit for a particular purpose. Where the buyer, expressly or impliedly, makes
known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to
show that he relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and the good are of a description
which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply, that the goods shall be
reasonably fit for such purpose, provided such goods are not sold under patent or trade
name.
● On the fact, the sale occurred in the ordinary course of business because Naomi
purchased the make-up from Jade’s shop which sold cosmetics.
● Besides that, Naomi did expressly informed Jade that she have sensitive skin.
● Naomi informed Jade the purpose of the make-up and hence she had relied on Jade’s
skill and judgment.
● Lastly, the goods are not bought under patent or trade name as Naomi did not inform
Jade the particular brand.
● In conclusion, Naomi can sue Jade for breach of implied condition as to fitness for
particular purpose in accordance with Section 16(1)(a) Sale of Goods Act, 1957 and
claim for the price that she spent for the makeup product.

(b) State whether the following contracts are governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1957:
(Pg 15-17)

(i) Lim agrees to sell his palm oil estate to Tan for RM2 million.

● Section 2 is not satisfied because the palm is not a movable goods.

● Section 4 is satisfied because there involves price of RM2 million.

(ii) Amy agrees to transfer her collection of Picasso paintings to Ben in exchange
for Ben’s Ferrari Sports car.

● Section 2 is satisfied because the paintings are movable goods.

● Section 4 is not satisfied because there is an exchange of goods.

(iii) Wong agrees to sell his dog to Jane for the sum of RM500.

● Section 2 is satisfied because the transaction is movable goods

● Section 4 is not satisfied because there is no price
4. Sharon wants to buy a blender which can also be used as a juicer. She went to Hip Hop
Electrical Store and after looking through many brands of blender, Sharon decided to
choose “3X” brand because it was stated on the box that it could also be used as a juicer.
She paid for it and went home. 已经给钱了 S4 satisfied

Upon reaching home Sharon excitedly took out the blender to grind onions but the
blender was not working. After putting on much effort, Sharon decided to make a nice
cool fruit juice. However, there were no components in the blender suitable for making
juice.

After that, Sharon went to the store and returned the blender. The supervisor refused to
refund the money to her and claiming that Sharon must have used the blender wrongly
and further stating that the description on the box about the blender can also be used as
a juice extractor was wrong. Advise Sharon. (Pg 9, 10)

● In order for Sharon to sue under Sale of Goods Act, section s2 and s4 must be
satisfied.
● Outline S.2 – satisfied, blender is a moveable property.
● Outline S.4 – satisfied, she bought the blender for a certain price.
● To discuss S.16(1)(b) –there is an implied condition that goods must be of
merchantable quality.
● To discuss S.15- where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description there is
an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description.
● Conclusion: Sharon can sue under S.16(1)(b) and S.15. Therefore the Hip Hop
Electrical Store was in breach of the condition. She can claim for the price that she
spent for purchasing the blender.

PAST YEAR
5.  Explain the meaning of ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’ and ‘Estoppel’. (19,20)
 Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
 This rule is set in the maxim “Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet” meaning “No one can
transfer a better title than he himself has”. 
 Thus, a person cannot give what he does not have, including he cannot transfer title
that he does not have, e.g. no one can sell the goods and give a good title if he is not
the owner.
 Estoppel
 Estoppel may arise when ‘the owner of the goods, by his conduct, make it appear to
the buyer that the person who sells the goods has his authority to sell and the buyer
acts in reliance on it.
 The owner will be estopped or prevented from denying the seller’s authority to sell.
The buyer who takes the goods in good faith and for value will acquire a good title by
estoppel.