'A' agrees to sell to 'B' 10 bags of Rice out of 50 bags stored in his
godown for Rs. 10,000/-. The Rice is completely destroyed by fire.
Can 'B' compel 'A' to supply the Rice?
🧾 Legal Analysis
Section 18 & 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 are relevant here:
Section 18: When there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods, the
property (ownership) does not pass to the buyer until the goods are ascertained (i.e.,
specifically identified and separated).
Section 20: In the case of specific goods in a deliverable state, if the contract is
unconditional, the property passes to the buyer at the time of contract.
🧑⚖️Application to Your Case
The contract is for 10 bags out of 50, which means the goods are unascertained (not
yet identified or separated).
Since the 10 bags were not earmarked or separated from the lot of 50, no property
passed from A to B.
Therefore, ownership remained with A when the fire destroyed the rice.
As per Section 7 of the Act, if specific goods perish before sale and without fault
of either party, the contract becomes void.
🔚 Conclusion
Since the 10 bags of rice were unascertained and the entire stock was destroyed before the
goods were appropriated to the contract, A is not liable to deliver the rice and B cannot
compel performance. The contract becomes void due to destruction of goods.
✅ Answer: No, B cannot compel A to supply the rice.
⚖️Case Law: Gustav Leonhardt v. Indian Railway Co. (1908) ILR 30 All 193
📌 Facts:
There was an agreement to sell a certain quantity of goods out of a larger bulk.
Before the goods were appropriated (i.e., separated), the entire stock was destroyed
without fault of either party.
⚖️Held:
Since the goods were unascertained, no property had passed to the buyer.
Therefore, the seller was not liable for nondelivery due to destruction.
The contract became void due to impossibility of performance.
⚖️Case Law: Rugg v. Minett (1809) 11 East 210
📌 Principle:
This is an English case, but it forms the basis of Section 18 of the Indian Sale of
Goods Act.
It held that property in unascertained goods does not pass to the buyer until the
goods are identified and appropriated to the contract.
🧾 Supporting Provision Recap:
Section 18: Property in unascertained goods does not pass until ascertainment.
Section 7: If specific goods perish before the contract, it is void.
No, ‘Y’ is not entitled to remuneration for his services in this case.
'X' employs 'Y' to recover the debt Rs. 1,500/- from 'Z'. The
debt became time barred, because of Y's negligence, Is 'Y'
entitled to remuneration for his services?
🧾 Legal Principle Involved
This case relates to the law of agency under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically the
duties of an agent.
⚖️Key Sections:
Section 212 – Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business with reasonable skill
and diligence.
Section 217 – Agent's right to remuneration only when he properly discharges his
duty.
Section 218 – Agent is bound to render proper accounts.
⚖️Application to the Case
X (Principal) appoints Y (Agent) to recover a debt from Z.
Due to Y’s negligence, the debt becomes time-barred under the Limitation Act,
1963.
This means X loses his legal right to recover the debt.
Y has failed to perform his duty with reasonable care and skill as required by
Section 212.
🧑⚖️Judicial Support / Case Law
🔹 Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal (1951 AIR 144)
This case establishes that if an agent fails to perform his duties with reasonable care and skill,
he can be held liable for losses caused to the principal and is not entitled to remuneration.
✅ Conclusion
Since Y’s negligence led to the loss of the entire debt due to it becoming time-barred, he
breached his duty under Section 212. Hence:
Y is not entitled to receive any remuneration for his services.
Let me know if you'd like this answer formatted for an exam (e.g. IRAC method or case-note
style).
'A' and 'B' form trading partnership for 5 years. After 2 years,
'A' is convicted of travelling on the Railway without ticket. 'A'
files suit for dissolution of the firm on the ground of his own
misconduct. Will he succeed?
No, ‘A’ will not succeed in getting the firm dissolved on the ground of his own misconduct
— especially when the misconduct is trivial or not related to the business of the firm.
🧾 Legal Analysis
⚖️Relevant Law:
Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Dissolution by the Court
Under Clause (c) of Section 44:
"The court may dissolve a firm if a partner is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect
prejudicially the carrying on of the business..."
But this is discretionary and requires that:
1. The conduct must be serious.
2. It must prejudicially affect the business of the firm.
3. And not merely be misconduct unrelated to the partnership business.
🧑⚖️Case Law:
🔹 Moss v. Elphick (1910) 1 KB 846
📌 Facts:
One partner was convicted for a minor criminal offence unrelated to the business.
He sought dissolution of the firm on the ground of his own misconduct.
⚖️Held:
The court held that minor or trivial offences not affecting the business do not justify
dissolution.
The misconduct must be grave and directly impact the business or the mutual trust
between partners.
🧾 Application to the Present Case
A’s conviction for travelling without a railway ticket is:
o A petty offence (minor misconduct),
o Unrelated to the business of the trading firm,
o And does not affect the carrying on of the business or mutual trust in any
significant way.
✅ Conclusion
Since the misconduct is neither serious nor business-related, the court is unlikely to grant
dissolution of the firm under Section 44(c). Thus:
‘A’ will not succeed in the suit for dissolution of the partnership on the ground of his own
petty misconduct.
Let me know if you want this answer in a structured law paper format or as a printable
PDF for notes.
'X' is an active partner of a firm with 'Y' and 'Z'. 'X' retires
without giving a public notice. Whether 'X' is liable to the
creditor in respect of a loan advanced after his retirement?
Decide. with a example case law
Yes, ‘X’ will be liable to the creditor for the loan advanced after his retirement, because
he did not give a public notice of his retirement.
🧾 Legal Provision Involved
⚖️Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
“Notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he continues to be liable to third
parties for acts of the firm done after his retirement until public notice is given of the
retirement...”
This means that if a retired partner does not give public notice, they are still considered a
partner in the eyes of third parties (such as creditors) and are liable for debts or acts of the
firm incurred after retirement.
🧑⚖️Leading Case Law
🔹 Scarf v. Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345 (HL)
📌 Facts:
A partner retired from the firm without public notice.
A creditor, unaware of the retirement, gave credit to the firm.
The retired partner was held liable.
⚖️Held:
The House of Lords held that since no notice was given, the retired partner was still
liable for debts incurred by the firm as the creditor acted in good faith believing him
to be a partner.
🧾 Application to Present Case
X retired, but he did not give public notice as required under Section 32(3).
The creditor advanced a loan after X's retirement, but in good faith, believing X was
still a partner.
So, X remains liable for the loan.
✅ Conclusion
‘X’ will be liable to the creditor for the loan advanced after retirement because he failed to
give public notice as required under Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act.
The case of Scarf v. Jardine supports this legal position.
Let me know if you want this turned into a case brief format or a ready-to-print law note.
R' purchased a motor car from 'D' and used the same for several
months. 'D' had no title to the car and therefore, 'R' was
compelled to give it up to the true owner. 'R' sued 'D' to recover
back the price which he had already paid -Decide
Certainly, Manu. Here's a well-structured answer to your Contract-II (Sale of Goods Act)
question, including suitable case law:
Question:
'R' purchased a motor car from 'D' and used the same for several months. 'D' had no title to
the car and therefore, 'R' was compelled to give it up to the true owner. 'R' sued 'D' to recover
back the price which he had already paid. Decide.
Answer:
Relevant Provision:
Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Section 14(a) states that "there is an implied condition
on the part of the seller that, in a contract of sale, he has a right to sell the goods." If the
seller has no such right (i.e., no ownership), the buyer can repudiate the contract and claim
damages or refund.
Facts Recap:
'R' purchased a motor car from 'D'.
'D' had no legal title to sell the car.
The true owner reclaimed the car.
'R' sued to recover the price already paid.
Legal Issue:
Can the buyer ('R') recover the purchase price from a seller ('D') who sold goods without
having ownership?
Decision:
Yes, 'R' is entitled to recover the purchase price from 'D' because 'D' breached the implied
condition of title under Section 14(a) of the Sale of Goods Act. The fact that 'R' used the car
for some time does not waive the breach of this condition. The contract becomes void as the
seller had no right to sell, and hence no valid title passed to the buyer.
Case Law:
📌 Rowland v. Divall (1923) 2 KB 500
Facts: A person bought a car and used it for several months before it was discovered that the
seller had no title. The true owner recovered the car, and the buyer sued to recover the price.
Held: The buyer was entitled to a full refund. The court held that the buyer had not
received what he contracted for—a car with good title—and the seller had breached the
implied condition as to title.
Conclusion:
In light of Section 14(a) of the Sale of Goods Act and the decision in Rowland v. Divall, 'R'
has the legal right to recover the entire amount paid to 'D'. The use of the vehicle for some
months does not bar recovery since ownership never legally passed.
