Sale of goods and agency Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Sale of goods and agency - Essay Example In the given case, Kangaroo Developments entered into a contract of sale with Libby’s wines on 20th January. The delivery of 200 bottles of Queensland Plonk was to be on 1st February by Libby’s wines on the premises of Kangaroo Developments. Libby’s wine had 700 bottles in their stock from which 200 bottles had to be separated to be delivered to Kangaroo Developments. The 200 bottles, while not separated, were general goods. In order to become ascertained goods, they had to be separated. The agreement was made on 20th January but the transfer of property had not yet been made. According to Sale of Goods Act, 1979, S.18 (Rule 2), â€Å"Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods and the seller is bound to do something to the goods for the purpose of putting them into a deliverable state, the property does not pass until the thing is done and the buyer has notice that it has been done.† According to the given facts, Libby’s wines had sepa rated 200 bottles on 20th January and marked them to be delivered to Kangaroo Developments. There is no information in the given facts whether Kangaroo Developments had the knowledge that 200 bottles had been separated; hence ascertained. The manager put the bottles back after two hours of their separation. By the 1st of February, Libby’s wine had been liquidated. Assuming that Kangaroo Developments had no knowledge of the separation of 200 bottles, it would mean that the goods were never ascertained. Therefore, no transfer of property had taken place and the risk in them remained with Libby’s wines. In this case, since Kangaroo Developments had already paid the price of bottles to Libby’s wines, they would be entitled to recover the price. They would not be entitled to recovery of 200 bottles since the title was never shifted. On the other hand, if Kangaroo Developments had the knowledge that the goods were separated to be delivered to them, the goods would hav e been said to have ascertained and the transfer of property would have deemed to be made. In this case, Kangaroo Developments would have been able to recover the bottles if the courts were convinced that despite the liquidation of Libby’s wines, the delivery of 200 bottles was possible. It is because the title of the bottles and the risk in them had been transferred when they were separated. If the liquidation of Libby’s wines had made the delivery impossible, then Kangaroo Developments would only have been able to recover the price. In Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate, the plaintiffs made an agreement to sell a horizontal tandem condensing engine to the defendants. The engine had to be dismantled. After it was dismantled but before it could be delivered, the bed plate of the engine was broken accidently. The defendants refused to accept the engine. The plaintiffs sued. It was held that the defendants were entitled to reject the engine because t he engine was not ascertained as the defendants did not have the knowledge about that fact. Therefore, the title was not transferred. Therefore, by the application of S.18 of Sale of Goods Act, 1979 and Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate, Kangaroo Development would only be able to recover the price if they did not have the knowledge of 200 bottles being separated. The property in goods and the risk in them would remain with Libby’s wines. Against William and Sons According to the given facts, Kangaroo Developments contracted to purchase 500 branded coffee mugs from William and Sons. Each mug was required to be printed with Kangaroo Development’s logo. In this case, the subject matter is future goods. According to S.18 of Sale of Goods Act, 1979, the property in goods would transfer to Kangaroo Developments when the printing of logos is done and they have the notice of it. Here, again, the transfer of property hinges on the affirmation of the fact w hether Kangaroo