Skip to main content

Rules as to delivery of goods

                           Rules as to delivery of goods


Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft.


1. Mode of Delivery:

According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive.

2. Expenses of Delivery:

According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agreed, the expenses of and incidental to putting the goods into a deliverable state shall be borne by the seller, but all expenses of and incidental to obtaining of delivery are borne by the buyer.

3. Installment Deliveries:

Under Section 38, unless otherwise, agreed, the buyer of goods is bound to accept delivery thereof by installments. Where there is a contract for the sale of goods to be delivered by the stated installments which are to be separately paid for and the seller makes no delivery or defective delivery in respect of one or more installments, or the buyer neglects or refuses to take delivery of or pay for one or more installments.

4. Effect of Part Delivery:

Section 34 of Sale of Goods Act lays down two rules in this regard, which are as follows:

1. Where the part delivery is made in progress (in continuation) of the whole delivery, then it is treated as a delivery of whole and the ownership of the whole quantity is supposed to pass to the buyer.

2.  Where the part delivery is made with the intention of separating it from the whole lot, then such part delivery does not operate as delivery of the remainder part also. It means that delivery of a severed (separated) part is not treated as a delivery of the whole and therefore the ownership of the whole quantity is not transferred to the buyer such part of goods is delivered to him.

5. Place of Delivery:

According to Section 36(1) of Sale of Goods Act, whether the buyer is to take possession of the goods or the seller is to send them, is a question that depends upon the terms of the contract and therefore it will differ from case to case. Apart from any such contract, the rules regarding the place of delivery are as follows (rules to apply when nothing is agreed upon

 

 

6. Time of Delivery:

Where the place of delivery is agreed upon, the goods are delivered at that place during business hours on a working day. Section 36 (2) of the Act provides that where the seller is bound to send the goods to the buyer under the terms of the contract but no time for sending them is fixed, the seller is bound to send them within a reasonable time.

 Section 36(4) provides that the demand of delivery or tender of delivery may be treated as ineffectual unless it is made at a reasonable hour. What is ‘reasonable time’ or ‘reasonable hour’ is a question of fact it will depend upon the circumstances and facts of each individual case.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more