Skip to content

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

Anil sold a machine to Bhavna but kept possession of it. Anil then sold and delivered the same machine to Chetan, who bought in good faith without notice of the earlier sale. Which statement is correct under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?

Chetan's delivery is effective as if Anil had been expressly authorised by the owner. A seller who remains in possession after sale can pass good title to a later buyer who receives the goods in good faith and without notice of the earlier sale.

  1. AChetan gets no title because Bhavna bought first
  2. BChetan's delivery has the same effect as if Anil were expressly authorised by the owner to make itCorrect
  3. CChetan gets title only if Bhavna consents
  4. DChetan gets title only if Anil was a mercantile agent

Explanation

Section 30(1) provides that where a person having sold goods continues in possession, delivery by him under any sale to a person receiving in good faith and without notice of the previous sale has the same effect as if he were expressly authorised by the owner. Anil need not be a mercantile agent, and Bhavna's consent is not needed, so the other options fail.

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