Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Mehta Steels agrees to sell goods to Iyer Fabricators, with the price payable on 30 November irrespective of delivery. The goods have not been appropriated to the contract and property has not passed. Iyer wrongfully refuses to pay on 30 November. Mehta's remedy is:

Mehta can sue for the price. Where the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery and the buyer wrongfully refuses to pay, the seller may sue for the price even though property has not passed and the goods are not appropriated.

  1. ATo sue for the price, since it was payable on a day certain irrespective of deliveryCorrect
  2. BOnly to sue for damages for non-acceptance, since property has not passed
  3. CNo remedy, because delivery has not occurred
  4. DTo sue only after property passes to Iyer

Explanation

Section 55(2) lets the seller sue for the price where it is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery, even though property has not passed and the goods are not appropriated. The general rule in section 55(1), requiring passing of property, is therefore not the only route, so the damages-only option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

Practise Sale of Goods Act, 1930Free diagnostic mock

More Sale of Goods Act, 1930 questions