Skip to content

CSEET · Business Laws and Management · Elements of Law relating to Sale of Goods

Anil buys a bulk lot of rice from a wholesale grain trader by description. Before buying, he examines a sample and the defect of stones mixed in the rice would have been revealed by a reasonable examination, yet he does not notice it. Which statement is correct under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?

No implied condition of merchantable quality applies to that defect. Section 16(2) gives such a condition for goods bought by description from a dealer, but if the buyer has examined the goods, it does not cover defects which that examination ought to have revealed. The stones were easily discoverable.

  1. AThe implied condition of merchantable quality applies in full because the seller deals in rice
  2. BNo implied condition of merchantable quality applies for that defect, since examination ought to have revealed itCorrect
  3. CThe seller is liable only if he is the manufacturer
  4. DThe buyer can reject only if the price has not been paid

Explanation

Section 16(2) implies merchantable quality for goods bought by description from a seller who deals in them, but its proviso excludes defects which the buyer's examination ought to have revealed. Here the defect was discoverable, so the first option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Elements of Law relating to Sale of Goods shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Elements of Law relating to Sale of GoodsFree diagnostic mock

More Elements of Law relating to Sale of Goods questions