Skip to content

CA Foundation · Business Laws · The Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Bhavna sold 40 sarees to Charu, with delivery to be at Bhavna's shop. Bhavna told Charu to collect them but Charu did not collect them for two weeks. During that period the sarees were damaged by a fire in the shop, without fault on Bhavna's part. Which statement is correct under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?

If the seller is ready to deliver and asks the buyer to take delivery, but the buyer neglects to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is liable for loss caused by that neglect. So Charu bears the fire loss, since Bhavna was not at fault.

  1. ABhavna alone bears the loss as she is the owner until delivery
  2. BCharu is liable for the loss that was caused by her delay in taking delivery, as Bhavna was ready to deliver and Charu neglected to take delivery, even though the loss was not Bhavna's faultCorrect
  3. CNeither party bears the loss, as the fire was an accident
  4. DCharu is liable only if she had paid the price in advance

Explanation

When the seller is ready and willing to deliver and requests the buyer to take delivery, and the buyer does not do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is liable to the seller for any loss caused by the neglect. This includes a reasonable charge for the care and custody of the goods. The loss here occurred during the buyer's delay and was not due to the seller's fault. Prior payment is not a condition.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 questions