Skip to content

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

Dinesh bought 10 tonnes of wheat from Nikhil, paying the full price in advance. Nikhil delivered only 6 tonnes and, despite repeated requests, refused to deliver the rest and did not return any money. Dinesh accepted the 6 tonnes. Which statement is correct about Dinesh's remedy?

Dinesh may sue Nikhil for damages for non-delivery of the remaining 4 tonnes. The buyer's remedy for wrongful refusal to deliver is damages, and accepting part of the goods does not remove it. A suit for the price is a seller's remedy and is irrelevant here.

  1. AHe may sue for the return of the entire price only
  2. BHe may sue for damages for non-delivery of the remaining 4 tonnesCorrect
  3. CHe has no remedy because he accepted part of the goods
  4. DHe may sue for the price of the 6 tonnes accepted

Explanation

Where the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods, the buyer may sue for damages for non-delivery. Dinesh has accepted 6 tonnes, so he can claim damages only for the undelivered 4 tonnes, being the loss on that quantity. Acceptance of part does not take away this remedy. A suit for price is a seller's remedy.

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.

Practise The Sale of Goods Act, 1930Free diagnostic mock

More The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 questions