Issue

1). Is Cherry entitled to reimbursement for goods sold to Mariam, who has been declared
bankrupt?
2). Is Sam allowed to reject the cargo of rice after discovering that the items are not of the
quality indicated by the seller?

Principle
1). Bankruptcy rules relating to contracts for the sale of goods remain in effect even though there
are those contained in this Act.
2). Once the purchasers decided to regard the breach of condition as a breach of warranty, they
could not cancel the contract since the right had been waived. The party who has the right to sue
for losses without going to terminate the deal. Where a contract of sale is not severable and the
buyer has accepted the goods or a portion thereof, or where the contract is for specific goods the
property in which has passed to the buyer, the seller's breach of any condition to be fulfilled could
only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not just as a ground for rejecting the goods and
treating the contract as repudiated, unless there is an express or implied term of the contract to
that effect.

Section Applied
1). In the initial subject matter, section 64(2) of the Sales of Goods Act 1957 shall be
applicable. It is stated that the rules in bankruptcy that have connections to contracts for the
sale of goods need to continue to apply, regardless of anything that exists in this Act.
2). The latter scheme, section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act 1957 shall be applicable. The
section 13(1) of the Sales of Goods Act 1957 stated that where the contract of sale is
subject to any condition that the seller must meet, the buyer may waive the condition or
chose to treat the violation of the condition as a breach of warranty rather than a reason for
repudiating the contract. The section 13(2) of the Sales of Goods Act 1957 stated that
where a contract of sale is not severable and the buyer has accepted the goods or a portion
thereof, or where the contract is for specific goods the property in which has passed to the
buyer, the seller's breach of any condition to be fulfilled can only be treated as a breach of
warranty, not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated,
unless there is an express or implied term of the contract to that effect.

Case
The facts of the presented case are comparable to the facts of the case, Interdeals
Automation vs. Hong Hong Documents. In this instance, the vendor sued the customer for
failure to pay for the items. The customer claimed that the products in question were not
merchantable. However, the court dismissed the buyer's allegation on the grounds that the
customer purchased the products after thoroughly inspecting them. As a result, rejecting the
products is untenable.

Application
The bankruptcy laws in connection to contracts for the sale of goods would be applicable
regardless of anything provided in this Act, according to the requirements of section 64(2) of
the Act. The seller would be compelled to follow bankruptcy regulations in order to
determine if the money from the insolvent buyer may be claimed.

Furthermore, when it comes to rejecting a consignment of rice, the rules of section 13 of the
Act must be followed. This section explains that when the customer accepts the products
after a thorough inspection, the sales contract becomes irrevocable. If the seller breaches any
of the terms of the sales contract, it is considered a breach of warranty, which is not a valid
reason for rejecting the consignment of goods.
Conclusion
Based on the above explanation, it is possible to infer that the bankruptcy laws must be followed in
order to determine if the seller is entitled to payment from the bankrupt buyer. In the latter situation,
the buyer is not legally entitled to reject the entire shipment of goods. But the buyer who has the right
to sue for losses.