"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2016J2_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eTHE NEED TO UPDATE THE SALE OF\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eOratier\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2016-08-13T11:33:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2016-08-13T11:33:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e12862\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e73320\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e611\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e172\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e86010\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eTHE NEED TO UPDATE THE SALE OF\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eGOODS ACT, 1930 (PAKISTAN)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.2pt\u0027\u003eMuhammad Humzah Sheikh\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eAdvocate High Court, Lahore\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-top:9.0pt;margin-right:0in;\r\nmargin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIntroduction\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:14.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nsale of goods is one of the earliest forms of business transaction, existing\r\nafter the barter system. The old English law was usually to protect the right\r\nof both the parties than recognizing the binding\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eforce\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebetween\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eparties.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eparties\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emay\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esue\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eeach other\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eunless\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethey\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eshowed\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eparties\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebenefited\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efrom the transaction.\r\nThe need for the mercantile community to rely on the conditions\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elaid\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edown\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eparties\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edrove the\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecommon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto accept\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esale\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etransaction\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eshould\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebe properly\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eestablished\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eSale of\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eGoods\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAct\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e1893\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e(UK)\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eestablished\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhich\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elater\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eamended\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nSale\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eGoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAct\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e1979\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e(UK). Sales of Goods play a\r\nvital role towards the national economy of the country as the whole\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emanufacturing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eindustry\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eindividual consumer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003erelies\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eit.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eintroduction\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eSale\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eGoods Act\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003e(1930) in Pakistan,\r\nintended to do the same by addressing multiple socio-legal problems concerning\r\nconsumers\u0027 protection, as well as the rights of buyers\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esellers\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecommercial\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003earena.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eNot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eonly\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edid\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eit bring clarity\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe subject\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ematter,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epricing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003evalidity\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe terms\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esales\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003econtracts, this Act also implied certain\r\nterms into contracts\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhen\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethey\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efailed\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eaddress\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003evital\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epoints.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eTherefore, for the first time, law began\r\nensuring the protection of consumers, empowering them with adequate rights and\r\nplacing substantial duties upon the sellers in order to create a more equitable\r\nbalance between buyers\u0027 and sellers\u0027 rights. However, expansion of trade\r\nworldwide along with the drastically changed nature of commerce has far\r\noutgrown this venerable enactment. The Sale of Goods Act (1930) was passed in\r\nIndia\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhen it was a British Dominion and\r\nwas adopted by Pakistan, upon its creation, as it was. Since then, although the\r\nAct has been amended in the UK to comply with the modern commercial needs, this\r\nis not the case in Pakistan.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nsystem if amended could get rid of the economic problems faced today due to the\r\nout dated law. While looking at the history it can be encountered that the\r\norigin of the Sale of Goods Act comes from the United Kingdom which was later\r\nadopted by the former British colonies. However, it can be seen that the Sale\r\nof Goods was later amended in the United Kingdom updating its law according to\r\nSale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) by the new Act and few major changes in 1994 and\r\n1995. Moreover, Sale of Goods Act was amended through small significant\r\namendments made by the Misrepresentation Act 1967\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e, the Criminal Law\r\nAct\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e and the Theft Act 1968\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, a significant\r\namendment was seen through the Supply of Goods Act 1973\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e. In\r\naddition, amendments were made by the Consumer Credit Act 1974\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e and\r\nthe Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; these amendments were incorporated to form\r\nthe new Sale of Goods Act of 1979 in the United Kingdom\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e. While\r\nPakistan a former colony of the British Empire is still based on the previous\r\nlaw which has become rigid and hard to follow. Post-Independence, Pakistan\r\nenacted the federal laws Revision and Deceleration Act 1951, under which it\r\nadopted several various Indian laws which governed both the country pre\r\nindependence in which 1930 Sale of Goods Act was a part and was adopted in the\r\nPakistani legal system\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. There are several issues which need to be\r\nadhered, one of the main issues faced due to the out dated law is in respect to\r\nthe consumer, as there is no or very low protection provided to protect the\r\nright of the consumer, however, there are some ways through which a buyer may\r\nbe protected, a buyer may examine and reject the goods if they do not comply\r\naccording to the contract, moreover if he does not examine the goods then he\r\nbound to accept them furthermore, may not reject them as the rule of the buyer\r\nbeware is still enacted. The Sale of Goods Act of 1930 (Pakistan) is out dated\r\nand vague, custom and practices concerning the sales of goods have changed over\r\nthe period of 80 years.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eMy\r\nresearch aims to explore the upgrades needed to make the 1930 Act (Pakistan)\r\nworkable and useful for consumers, so as to bring commercial certainty and\r\nallow economic growth which is being hampered by this dated law. The UK\u0027s Sale\r\nof Goods Act (1979) may be consulted for that purpose as it brought in much\r\nneeded clarity to ambiguities that lingered at that time. We will begin with\r\nSection 13(1), which deals with the description of goods sold. Although, it\r\nprotects purchasers, the same section also provides cover to sellers. This adds\r\ncertainty to the law as it states that implied terms may only be breached if\r\nthe buyer relied upon the description provided; where the buyer is an expert\r\nhimself, reliance may not be established. This kind of certainty and protection\r\nfor both parties is not available in the 1930 Act (Pakistan). Similarly, with the\r\nexpansion of trade, the term \u0026quot;in the course of business\u0026quot; needed a\r\nwider meaning because Section 14(1) implies terms into the contract relating to\r\nquality and fitness for purpose, where a seller acts in the course of business.\r\nLack of amendment of the Pakistani Act has limited the scope of the statute by\r\nleaving out the modern types of business, thus limiting the rights of\r\nconsumers. Furthermore, to cover the minor and substantial problems relating to\r\nthe \u0026quot;satisfactory condition\u0026quot; of the goods, a practical objective test\r\nwas introduced under the Section 14(2) of the 1979 Act (UK) whereas Pakistani\r\nlaw still applies the \u0027merchantable goods\u0027 test, again restricting buyers\u0027\r\nrights. In addition, the lack of amendment of the 1930 Act (Pakistan) has also\r\nstultified the remedies available to buyers and in particular to consumer\r\nbuyers. Given the fact that consumers are rarely if ever on an equal footing\r\nwhen it comes to the negotiation of contracts, the provision of more remedies\r\nto them is essential to maintain an equitable balance in contracts for the sale\r\nof goods.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThese\r\nand other similar defects are encumbering the development of commercial\r\nclarity, and hence economic growth, in Pakistan. My research seeks to identify\r\nthe best way to modify the 1930 Act so as to bring the law into the 21st\r\ncentury while catering to the unique requirements of my jurisdiction as far as\r\npossible.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e1.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eStatutory\r\nImplied Term of \u0026quot;Sale by Description\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhenever\r\nthere is a contract for the sale of goods by description, the requirement that\r\nthe goods supplied match their description is an implied term or condition of\r\nthe contract. There have been always a debate as to whether there should have\r\nbeen an express obligation rather than an implied one in such cases because\r\nafter all it is a sale by description. Before the law was codified, a\r\ndistinction was drawn the sale of specific goods and sale of goods by\r\ndescription in a contract. In addition, the implied condition gave the buyer to\r\nreject the goods if the goods supplied by the seller were not in the exact\r\ncondition specified by the description. Section 13(1) of Sale of Goods Act 1979\r\n(UK) deals with the description of goods sold. Although it protects purchaser\r\nthe same section also provides cover to the sellers. This section adds certainty\r\nto the law as it states that implied terms may only be breached if the buyer\r\nrelied upon the description provided. Though, where the buyer is an expert\r\nhimself, reliance may not be established. However, this kind of certainty is\r\nnot provided in the Sale of Goods Act 1930 in Pakistan. The Sale of Goods Act\r\n1979 (UK) has law as brought clarity to ambiguity which lingered with time.\r\nMoreover, the 1979 Act (UK) went through a lot of amendments and these would\r\nhelp to provide more clarity and certainty\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e if these changes were\r\nadopted by the 1930 Act in Pakistan.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e1.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eStatutory Implied Term of \u0026quot;Sale by Description\u0026quot; in Pakistan: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSale\r\nby description is provided in section 15 of The Sale of Goods Act 1930\r\n(Pakistan) which states:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Where\r\nthere is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied\r\ncondition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale\r\nis by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of\r\nthe goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with\r\nthe description \u0026quot;.\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThis\r\nsection states that the correspondence of goods being sold to their description\r\nas described in the contract is an implied condition. The description of goods\r\nmay assume different forms and goods may be described by different names\r\nreferring to a specific brand or quality. Thus, the seller must supply such\r\ngoods which are of that specific brand or quality in the market\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nThe goods may also be described by the special features that they must possess.\r\nAccording to Lord Wright sales by description may include many situations as\r\npointed out in Grant v Australian knitting Mills\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nmay also be pointed out that there is a sale by description even though the\r\nbuyer is buying something displayed before him on the counter: a thing is sold\r\nby description, though it is specific, so long as it is sold not merely as the\r\nspecific thing, but as a thing corresponding to a description e.g., woollen\r\nunder garments, a hot-water bottle, a second-hand reaping machine, to select a\r\nfew obvious illustrations.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt\r\nwas stated in the case of Gardiner v Grey\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e that if the goods which\r\nhave been sold to the buyer cannot be described as what they have been\r\ndescribed as, the buyer may reject the goods\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e. Two things are\r\nnecessary to enable the buyer to invoke the goods under this section. First,\r\nthere should be a sale by description\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e and, secondly the goods must\r\nfail to correspond with the description\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. This happened in the case\r\nof Varely v Whipp\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e, where the item supplied did not correspond to\r\nthe description of the goods mentioned in the contract and as the buyer had\r\nnever seen the goods and had replied on the description alone the buyer\r\ntherefore was entitled to return it. It was held in the case of Coachman v Hill\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e,\r\nthat \u0026quot;every item in a description which constituted a substantial\r\ningredient in the identity of the thing sold is a condition.\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSecond,\r\nwhere the buyer has seen the goods, but still relies on the description of\r\ngoods, the buyer still has the right to reject the goods under s15 of Sale of\r\nGoods Act 1930 (Pakistan)\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. This could be illustrated in the case\r\nof Nicholson and Venn v Smith Marriott\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e; here the buyer went to for\r\nan auction of sale of a set of linen napkins and table cloth which was\r\ndescribed as dating from the 17th century. The plaintiff being a dealer in antiques\r\nbought it and later found out it was actually from the 18th century and rejects\r\nthe goods under s 15\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e. It was held they he could do so, as he had\r\nrelied on the description provided by the seller. However, on the question of\r\nwhether the buyer is allowed to reject the goods in circumstances where there\r\nhas been no reliance on the description by the buyer, 1930 Act (Pakistan) is\r\nsilent and we need to consider how the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) deals with\r\nsuch a scenario.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\napproach provided in the Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan) has been rigid and\r\ndated. There has been no protection provided towards the seller, as it seems\r\nthe section has a biased approach towards the protection provided to the buyer.\r\nThus, as seen in s13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) an implied term may\r\nonly be breached where the buyer has relied upon the description provided;\r\nhowever, that where the buyer is an expert himself, reliance may not be\r\nestablished. This kind of certainty and protection to both parties is not available\r\nin the Sale of Goods Act 1930 of Pakistan which came into existence during the\r\nBritish Empire, which was later adopted by both India and Pakistan.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e1.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eStatutory Implied Term of \u0026quot;Sale by Description\u0026quot; in the United\r\nKingdom:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nEnglish law of contract can be seen to have drawn an important distinction\r\nbetween condition and warranties. A condition is an implied term of the\r\ncontract which needs to be followed in order to make a valid contract, if not\r\ndone so the contract may be taken as void. A breach \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ean\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eimplied\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eterm\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etaken as\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebreach\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoes\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto the root of the contract, thereby entitling the innocent party to\r\ntreat the contract as void. However, in case of breach of a warranty, the\r\ninnocent will not be able discharge the contract but may claim for damages from\r\nthe defaulting party. It may be seen that the distinction between conditions\r\nand warranties was established by the Sale of Goods Act of 1893 (UK) which went\r\nthrough various amendments over time. This was done so that it could provide\r\ncertainty towards the sale by description. We may begin with section 13(1)\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhich deals with the description of goods sold.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Where\r\nthere is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied\r\nterm that the goods will correspond with the description.\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhere\r\nthere is a sale by description or by sample, the implied condition in this\r\nsection states that goods must correspond accordingly\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e, if they do\r\nnot do so the buyer has the right to reject the goods. The major difference\r\nbetween the previous Sale of Goods Act\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e in the UK and the 1979 Act\r\n(UK) is that when dealing with sale by description that previous Act made no\r\ndistinction between specific goods and un ascertained goods, while the current\r\nAct\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e lays down a clear distinction between them as whenever there\r\nis a sale of unascertained or future goods that sale is by description\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nHowever, where the buyer does not deal as a consumer as per the Unfair Contract\r\nTerms Act 1977, the seller may be able to exclude his right in case of a breach,\r\nwhich will be explained later in this chapter. On the face of it, this seems\r\nsimilar to the Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan), though the\r\napproach of the courts has recognized that the correspondence with the\r\ndescription of the goods was not the same as fitness for the purpose. The\r\nimplied term of description may now be excluded by agreement between the\r\nparties or eliminated by the exemption clauses.\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e Moreover, the\r\ncourts have taken a wider approach towards it as they look to see whether the\r\nbreach in question was a fundamental one or not\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e. If the breach was\r\none which was minor the courts may not allow the buyer to repudiate the\r\ncontract or discharge it.\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e Further amendment in the Section was\r\nmade by adding subsection (3) of Section 13\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e to re-enact a\r\nprovision added by the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, so that\r\nuncertainty\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e could be removed where the buyer himself selects the\r\nitem from a self-service facility, as it states:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;a\r\nsale is not prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that,\r\nbeing exposed to sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAs\r\nseen from the wording of S 13(1) the implied term for description of goods is\r\nprescribed in favor of the buyer. Moreover, the enactment of subsection (3) provides\r\nmore certainty towards the section and the protection towards the buyer.\r\nAlthough there may be some instances where the buyer has selected the good in a\r\nself-service facility and there is sale by description yet the buyer may not be\r\nable to reject the goods which will be explained later in this chapter\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nThese amendments\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehave provided some\r\nprotection towards the seller. This kind of amendment is needed in the Sale of\r\nGoods Act in Pakistan; so that certainty of law could be provided towards the\r\nsale by description and a more appropriate balance struck between the rights of\r\nbuyers and sellers.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSection\r\n13 seems to be similar in various aspects to Section 15 of the 1930 Act\r\n(Pakistan). Where there is a sale by description; the terms of the contract need\r\nto be expressly mentioned or implied into the contract and the buyer must have\r\nplaced reliance on them. Let us compare the different aspects of description\r\nseparately. First, looking for a sale by description, the word description\r\nshould be a part of the terms and conditions of the contract not a mere\r\nrepresentation towards the buyer\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e. This was seen in the case of\r\nHeilbut, Symons \u0026amp; Co v Buckleton\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e where the descriptive words\r\nwere taken into account as being a part of the contract as the buyer had relied\r\non them, and it was held that they were not an inducement towards the buyer to\r\nmake him enter into the contract. Though, it can be seen that the word\r\ndescription has a narrower meaning than that used for the purpose of Trade\r\nDescription Act\u003csup\u003e37\u003c/sup\u003e. This was because the more narrow the meaning the\r\nmore precise it is, as for example a person who wants to buy oranges from a\r\nbulk when there are various types of bulk he needs to make his description\r\nprecise. Until he makes the description of goods clear he may not hold the\r\nseller liable if he provided him with oranges from the wrong bulk. This kind of\r\ncertainty is not present in the Sale of Goods Act of 1930 (Pakistan). Though\r\nfrom the wording it seems the law between the UK and Pakistan to be the same,\r\nthis is not the case because the Trade Description Act of 1968 in the UK\r\nclarified how narrowly the meaning of description should be construed in the\r\ncontext, as there could be various meaning deprived from different words.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThough\r\nit may seem that there has been some increase in the protection afforded to the\r\nseller, there have also been major amendments that increased the protection of\r\nbuyers. It can be seen that the old concept of caveat emptor or \u0027buyer beware\u0027,\r\napplies in such scenarios where the buyer has seen the goods before buying them\r\nand thus may not hold the seller liable for any default\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e. In\r\naddition, the goods may not be of the description which the buyer wanted to buy\r\nand still he may not reject them if he saw the goods beforehand. It was where\r\nthe goods were sold by sale of description that they had to be merchantable.\r\nHowever, this concept has been modified after the amendment of \u0027merchantable\r\nquality\u0027 to \u0027satisfactory quality\u0027\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e which will be discussed further\r\nin the next chapter. When it comes to the sale of goods by description the\r\ncourts tended to extend the category in order to protect the buyer, meaning the\r\nsale should be of such specific goods which the buyer wants to buy otherwise\r\nthe buyer may reject the goods. Moreover, even if the buyer has seen the goods\r\nthe seller would still be bound by sale by description as long as it is a sale\r\nby other hand. Though, it may be seen that there is a loophole for the sellers\r\nto get away in the Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan) when it comes to sale by\r\ndescription as it is still based on merchantable quality, while the UK Act has\r\nprovided a more certain approach towards the law regarding sales by\r\ndescription. According to section 13(1) the goods sold must correspond with the\r\ndescription implied in the contract. A perfect illustration could be drawn from\r\nthe case of Beale v Taylor\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e, here the buyer went to buy a car which\r\nwas illustrated as being dated 1961, although it was not so. It was held as the\r\nbuyer had relied on the description provided by the seller the seller that the\r\nseller was accountable. Moreover where there is even a small difference in the\r\nway of packing, and no difference in the monetary value of the product or\r\nquality, the buyer may still reject the goods for failing to match their\r\ndescription as per the case of Moore \u0026amp; Co v Landauer \u0026amp; Co.\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nmajor difference which could be encountered between the Sale of Goods Acts in\r\nPakistan and the UK is where there has been no reliance by the buyer on the\r\ndescription and the sale is by description. The seller would not be held\r\naccountable for any breach in the UK in such cases. Moreover, where the buyer\r\nis an expert, reliance may not be established as the buyer will know better\r\nthan the seller in such circumstances. This may be illustrated by the case of\r\nHarlington \u0026amp; Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art.\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e42 The\r\nclaimant had bought a painting for  6000 made by a German painter called Munter,\r\nhowever, they later found out that the painting was not by Munter. The buyer\r\nhad sent an expert to inspect the painting at the time of the sale and it was\r\nheld that the buyer did not have the right to reject the goods as they had\r\nsought advice from an expert, and moreover, they had no protection under\r\nSection 13 as they did not rely on the description provided by the seller but\r\nrelied on the competence of the expert in this matter\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e. In the case\r\nof Ashington Piggeries LTD v Christopher Hill Ltd\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e Lord Diplock\r\ntook the approach that the implied term describing the sale by description\r\nshould be constructed more narrowly in the case of specific goods so that it\r\ncould be decided whether the buyer has reject the goods as they did not\r\ncorrespond to the exact description. The wording towards the description should\r\nclarify and identify the goods which need to be supplied, rather than just\r\nidentifying a corresponding item. Moreover, it is at the court\u0027s discretion to\r\ndecide whether a specific term would be implied or not and may reject it if\r\ndoes not seem to be one. As illustrated in the case of Reardon Smith Line Ltd v\r\nYngvar Hansen-Tangen\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e as Lord Wilberforce explained that the ambit\r\nof section 13 is to find the essential wording which identifies the item. He further\r\nmore stated the previous cases as \u0027excessively technical and due fresh\r\nexamination.\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThough\r\nSection 13 is an implied term, it can now be removed from the contract by the\r\nexclusion and limitation clauses. The seller may exclude his liability for a breach\r\nof section 13 and may stop the buyer from rejecting the goods. However, this\r\nmay not mean that a seller sells a goods which totally fails to correspond to\r\nthe description. The exclusion clauses are inserted into the contract to limit\r\none of the contracting party\u0027s liabilities for the breach of the contract\u003csup\u003e46\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nThese clauses are usually under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the\r\nUnfair Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999\u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e. If there is an\r\nexclusion clause in the agreement and the parties have signed the contract then\r\neven if one of the parties does not know about the clause he would still be\r\nbound by it as per the case of L\u0027Estrange v Graucob.\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e However, if\r\nthere has been a misrepresentation the contract would become null and void and\r\nso will the exclusion clause as was held in the case of Curtis v Chemical\r\nCleaning Co.\u003csup\u003e49\u003c/sup\u003e It can be seen that s6(3) and (6) of Unfair Contract\r\nTerms Act\u003csup\u003e50\u003c/sup\u003e has the power to exclude Section 13 of Sale of Goods\r\nAct. This leads to the buyer not being able to reject the goods as his rights\r\nwould be limited by the exclusion clause. Though, it can be seen that the\r\neffect of the exclusion may be minimum or limited when talking about Section 13\r\nas the law of description is an expressed one and if the seller sells something\r\nwhich is corresponding however not the exact it may not exclude Section 13.\r\nHowever, it is on the court\u0027s discretion to exclude liability as in the case of\r\nHughes v Hall\u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e the exclusion clause was granted. Moreover, where\r\nthe time is of essence and the buyer has expressly or impliedly mentioned this\r\nin the contract it will hard to exclude the buyer\u0027s right to reject the goods.\r\nFurthermore, if the fitness and quality are a condition and the sellers fails\r\nto meet them still he would not be able to exclude buyers\u0027 right to reject. If\r\nthe buyer is also the consumer of the goods no exclusion clause would apply.\r\nMoreover, he would be allowed to reject any such good which the court considers\r\nto be unfair on the part of the consumer, as unfair terms shall not be binding on\r\nthe consumer. Schedule 2\u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e lists a number of terms which are\r\nregarded to be unfair towards the consumer.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eReturning\r\nto the Sale of Goods Act in Pakistan it can be seen that none of the above\r\nmentioned protections are provided to consumers, as still he would be dealt\r\nonly as buyers and not as consumers. Major amendments need to be made in this\r\naspect as mentioned in Schedule 2.\u003csup\u003e53\u003c/sup\u003e Moreover, the provision of an\r\nexclusion clause which protects the seller as it halts the buyer from rejecting\r\nthe goods. Such kinds of amendments are to provide a more certain approach to\r\nlaw and fix how rigid and dated it is today. Providing commercial clarity which\r\nwould hence lead to economic growth in the country as both sellers and buyers\r\nwould be where there is a sale by description and the buyer has not relied upon\r\nthe description and has gone for his own understanding in such scenarios the\r\ncourt may not hold the seller liable if there is held to have been a breach.\r\nThe most important amendment should be made where the buyer is an expert and\r\nhas knowledge of what he is purchasing as illustrated above, the seller should\r\nnot be accountable as reliance cannot be established, thus providing legal\r\ncover towards the seller. This kind of certainty and protection towards both\r\nparties is not currently found in the Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan), thus,\r\nthe legislature should focus on these aspects by taking law into account the\r\ncurrent British as it represents the continuation of legal development in\r\ncommercial law.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eStatutory\r\nImplied Term as to Quality and Fitness\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt\r\ncan be seen that sales law started to develop in the late 18th and 19th\r\ncenturies\u003csup\u003e54\u003c/sup\u003e. The principles evolved from the then prevailing\r\ndisputes between the merchants. Therefore the previous law was developed taking\r\ninto consideration the practice and expectations of the merchants rather than\r\nthe judicial view\u003csup\u003e55\u003c/sup\u003e. However, there was a further set of amendments\r\nin 1973 Supply of Goods Act in the UK which gave the new principle based on the\r\n\u0027merchantable quality\u0027. However, this did not fit the needs of the modern\r\nconsumer and was therefore amended in 1994\u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e and then in 1995\u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nto remove the obstacles which hampered the way of the consumers in the modern\r\nconsumer and commercial transactions. The 20th century had some major changes\r\ntoward the consumer protection which could be seen from the previous chapter,\r\nas the protection towards the consumer was given vital importance and still\r\nremains an important objective. With the expansion of trade, the term \u0026quot;in\r\nthe course of business\u0026quot; needed a wider meaning because Section 14(1) of\r\nSale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) implies terms into a contract relating to quality\r\nand fitness for the purpose, where a seller acts in the course of business.\r\nLack of amendment of the Pakistani Act has limited the scope of the statute by\r\nleaving out the modern types of business, thus limiting the rights of the\r\nconsumer. Furthermore, to cover the minor and substantial problems relating to\r\n\u0026quot;satisfactory condition\u0026quot; of the goods, a practical objective test was\r\nintroduced under the Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 (UK),\r\nwhereas Pakistani law still applies the \u0026quot;merchantable goods\u0026quot; test in\r\nSection 16(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan), again restricting\r\nbuyers\u0027 rights.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.1 Statutory Implied Term as to Quality and\r\nFitness in Pakistan: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nthe Pakistani Act Section 16\u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e deals with implied conditions as to\r\nquality and fitness, while in the United Kingdom Act it is dealt in section 14\u003csup\u003e59\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nAs both laws are based on common law it can be seen that in common law the law\r\nwas reluctant to imply the terms of quality and fitness, while the relying upon\r\nthe general principle of caveat emptor. This was a concept of letting the buyer\r\nbeware of what he is buying and if he or she is not sure about the seller or\r\nthe product they should make inquiries about it\u003csup\u003e60\u003c/sup\u003e. However, if the\r\nseller had made a false or misrepresentation of the goods sold he could be\r\nliable. Though, if he did not make a misrepresentation and made a true\r\nstatement which he backed by a warranty and if there is still breach in the\r\ncontract, the contract would not be held null and void but the seller would be\r\nliable for damages to the buyer\u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nPakistani Sale of Goods Act 1930 is still based on the principle of caveat\r\nemptor meaning the buyers beware. As the wordings of section 16 are a\r\nrestatement of this principle, the wording goes as follow:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Subject\r\nto the provision of this Act and other law for the time being in force, there\r\nis no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular\r\npurpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e62\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eHowever, there are exceptions mentioned\r\nwhere the effect is known to the buyer, if the buyer does not know the defect\r\nthan it is the obligation of the seller to tell him about it. The principle\r\ndeprived from the wording of the section is that the buyer is relying on his\r\nown skills and judgment for which he or she cannot hold the seller liable\u003csup\u003e63\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nHowever, this rule could be seen to be derived originally when goods were\r\nmostly sold in the open market and the buyer had the opportunity to satisfy\r\nhimself as to the quality or the fitness of the goods. In common law it has\r\nbeen illustrated that except in the case where there is a risk of fraud where\r\nthe buyer buys the goods under his own risk he may not hold the seller liable\r\nuntil there is a condition or a warranty.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAn\r\nexample would be where A sells goods to B and it turns out the goods were\r\ndefective and A did not know about the defect and B buys the goods and later\r\nfind out about the defect B has to pay the full price and would be entitled to\r\nreject the goods or claim for damages. It can be illustrated by seeing this\r\nsection that it starts with the rule involved in the maxim of caveat emptor,\r\nand proceeds towards the two exceptions laid down in subsections (1) and (2).\r\nWhich states that there is no implied warranty or condition towards quality\r\nexcept laid down in the two subsections. Subsection (1) states that there is an\r\nimplied condition as to the fitness of the goods as the goods must be fit for\r\nthe purpose they are required, while subsection (2) states that there has to be\r\nan implied conditions that the goods are of merchantable quality. If the buyers\r\nneeds to protect him from getting the wrong quality or fitness of the goods he\r\nneeds to have an implied condition or warranty in the contract. The question\r\nhere is \u0027what is fitness?\u0027 Fitness is that the goods being sold does not have\r\nto fit generally for purpose, but should be fit for the purpose notified by the\r\nbuyer. However, condition and warranty may only be established, where the sale\r\nis by description, the seller is has been told the purpose the goods need to be\r\nused and moreover, the buyer relied on the skill of judgment of the seller than\r\nhis own. So it may be said that the rule of caveat emptor only applies where\r\nthe buyer buys a specific goods, while where he has placed an order for the\r\nsupply of goods he would fall under the two exemption subsection and would be\r\ndeemed to have a condition other a warranty. Moreover, where the buyer has\r\nplaced such an order and goes for inspection of goods before delivery would not\r\nexclude the liability of the seller providing the goods under a condition or\r\nwarranty\u003csup\u003e64\u003c/sup\u003e. In cases where the sale is under a trade name or\r\nspecified article there will be no implied condition towards fitness, where the\r\nbuyer ask for a service or any machine to hire it purpose\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edo\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eit\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003erequired. However, it may be argued that the\r\nthing sold does not bring in the exclusion clause that the goods should not be\r\nfit for the purpose. Though if the buyer expressly states that he relies on the\r\nskills and judgment of the seller than in such a scenario the seller may not\r\nexclude the fitness test and may be held accountable.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eNow\r\ncoming towards subsection (2), the second exception has an implied condition as\r\nto merchantable quality. Though, the first part focuses that the goods bought\r\nneed to be by sale of description which has been discussed thoroughly in the\r\nprevious chapter. However, the important aspect here is that that the goods\r\nmust not only correspond to the description but must also be of merchantable\r\nquality. The goods supplied to the buyer needs to salable goods, with a\r\nwarranty of being merchantable quality.\u003csup\u003e65\u003c/sup\u003e Meaning even if the good\r\nis what it is described to be but it is not of merchantable quality the buyer\r\nhas the right to reject the\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods, even\r\nif the seller is not the producer or the manufacturer he is still bound by the\r\nprovision regarding merchantable quality. The section\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efurther states that if the buyer has examined\r\nthe goods in advance the seller would not be liable for any breach, though this\r\nconcept would be overlooked and would not benefit the seller where the goods\r\ndid not meet with the description.\u003csup\u003e66\u003c/sup\u003e The concept quality, fitness or\r\ncondition of good was excluded on where goods were on the \u0026quot;as is where\r\nis\u0026quot; basis. Where the seller had this term in the contract he was not\r\nliable if the goods were faulty. Moreover, the buyer later may not be able to\r\nraise an appeal that the quality presented was otherwise than what was agreed.\u003csup\u003e67\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever\r\nin the case of S. Zahur Ahmed v Howards (Coloney) Ltd\u003csup\u003e68\u003c/sup\u003e the seller\r\nsold almonds to the buyer, the buyer later complained the goods sold are\r\ndefective and what was seen and had sold them further at a loss. The seller\r\nargued that the goods where according to the sample so he would not be liable\r\nfor any damages. However, the court decided that the merchantable quality was\r\nan implied condition and the seller was liable even the buyer had seen the\r\ngoods before. Moreover, the buyer may be able to claim damages for the loss he\r\nhad suffered. If any case fells outside the ambit of the case discussed then\r\nthere is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality, fitness or\r\nmerchantable. Merchantable quality in itself is an implied condition and not a\r\nwarranty the goods sold to the buyer should not only correspond to the\r\ndescription but should also be of merchantable quality. Example, where there\r\nhas been a sale of a car horn though the horn supplied works properly and fits\r\nthe description but due to the packing has some scratches, this would give the\r\nright to buyer as they meet the required merchantable quality. Moreover, where\r\nthe seller sells the goods that is dangerous he has an implied condition to\r\ntell the buyer about it, even if the buyer did not buy the good by description.\r\nSeller is under an obligation to tell the buyer unless known about any defect\r\nin the good as in the case of Wafaq-i-Pakistan v Awanunnas\u003csup\u003e69\u003c/sup\u003e, where\r\nthe defect is known to the buyer, seller may not be obliged to do so.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.2 Statutory Implied Term as to Quality and\r\nFitness in United Kingdom: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eNow\r\ncoming towards The Sale of Goods Act 1979 in the United Kingdom, before moving\r\ntowards the amendments which were made in the act and how it changed the scope\r\nof Section 14, it is essential to look at the previous law and why were the\r\nchanges made with the course of period. Before moving forwards lets go back to\r\nthe Sale of Goods Act of 1893 (UK), whose wording are similar to the Pakistani\r\nSale of Goods Act as section 14(2) states that\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Where\r\nthe goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that\r\ndescription (whether he be the manufacture or not), there is an implied\r\ncondition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e70\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever,\r\nthe old Act went through some major amendments, this chapter will be focusing\r\non two kinds of amendments as discussed above first in respect to the\r\nlimitation of the implied term in situations where the sellers sell in the\r\ncourse of business and secondly the emergence of \u0027satisfactory quality\u0027 which\r\nreplaced the \u0027merchantable quality\u0027 test.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.2.1.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;In the course of Business\u0026quot;:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eOne\r\nof the major differences could be encountered where the seller sells the goods\r\nin the course of business, the two exceptions to quality and fitness contained\r\nin S 14(2) and (3)\u003csup\u003e71\u003c/sup\u003e may only apply in such a scenario. These\r\nsubsections have provided a vital change and have established a protection\r\ntowards the buyer who is the consumer when he buys the good from a\r\nmanufacturer. It can be illustrated from s14(2) that amendment has provided a\r\nbetter of protect towards the consumer and has raised the standards of quality\r\nas well. However, this is limited only where the goods have been sold by the\r\nseller in course of business as illustrated above.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nprinciple of \u0027in the course of business\u0027 was laid down in the case of Stevenson\r\nv Rogers\u003csup\u003e72\u003c/sup\u003e, in which it was held that sale of the fishing boat fell\r\nunder the ambit of \u0027in the course of business\u0027 s14 (3) and in the ambit of\r\nsection 14(2) and was held that the boat had to be of satisfactory quality.\r\nMoreover, it had been noted in the court if the original wording was taken in\r\nto account of the Sale of Goods Act 1893(UK) it would had a limited liability\r\nas the term the seller worked with was \u0026quot;in goods of that\r\ndescription\u0026quot;. Sale here is such where the buyer relies on the seller\u0027s\r\nskills and judgment in which he makes known to the seller about the special\r\npurpose the goods would be used for and should be reasonably fit for the\r\npurpose\u003csup\u003e73\u003c/sup\u003e. The description would vary from case to case. However,\r\nwhere a trader only deal in cricket goods and the buyers persuades him to get\r\ngolf clubs, that thing would not fall under a sale of goods of that description\r\nas it was not in his normal course of business to do so. Moreover, the goods\r\nmay be of merchantable quality but if does not fit the ambit of goods of that\r\ndescription the buyer would still have the right to reject the goods as seen in\r\nthe case of Sumner Permain \u0026amp; Co v Webb \u0026amp; Co\u003csup\u003e74\u003c/sup\u003e in addition,\r\nthis creates the link between subsection (1) and (2)\u003csup\u003e75\u003c/sup\u003e. Though, the\r\nprevious law restricted protection of the seller and in no way was he able to\r\nexclude his liability towards the buyer and would always be held accountable\r\nunder the old sale of goods law. However, it may be seen that after the\r\nenactment of the term in course of business which has even been given a wider\r\nmeaning has provided protection towards the seller. We can see that under the\r\nnew Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) the seller is able to exclude his liability if\r\nhe is not working in course of his business. The Pakistani law till today is based\r\non the implied term of \u0026quot;in goods of that description\u0026quot; and can be seen\r\nto have restricted the right of the modern day seller and consumers. There lies\r\na major ambiguity and rigidness till today as in which case a seller would be\r\nable to succeed his right to exclude his liability towards the buyer as if\r\nstill works on the term \u0027goods of that description\u0027 the buyer would have a\r\nreliance on the skills and judgment of the seller holding him liable for any\r\ndefault in the goods.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever,\r\nthe exception of the terms in course of business does not apply to every\r\ntransaction only where the contract is between one merchant to another. Though,\r\nwhere one person is acting as an agent on behalf of the another person and sale\r\nmay still be in course of a business dealing, as illustrated in the case of\r\nBoyter v Thomson.\u003csup\u003e76\u003c/sup\u003e The concept of in course of business led to many\r\nquestions, where a person does something in his business and would not do it\r\nnormally include selling of items, would it still amount to a sale of goods in\r\ncourse of business and the answer may be yes as seen in the case of Rogers\u003csup\u003e77\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nHowever, where the seller does not sell in the course of the business and buyer\r\nknows about the product or it falls within the ambit of section 14(5)\u003csup\u003e78\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nin such a scenario he would fall under the ambit of the principle of caveat\r\nemptor (Let the buyer beware). Moreover, there may be cases in relating to\r\nsection 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, where the buyer would not be\r\nheld as a consumer. In the case of R \u0026amp; B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v. United\r\nDominion Trust Ltd\u003csup\u003e79\u003c/sup\u003e, R \u0026amp; B the company bought a car for one of\r\nhis director; however it was held that the car though bought was for the use in\r\nbusiness. Though, R \u0026amp; B had no connection with the motor company so was\r\nheld that the contract was not be \u0026quot;in the course of business\u0026quot; and so\r\nthe consumer had a protection under UCTA 1977\u003csup\u003e80\u003c/sup\u003e if there was any\r\nbreach. This case was later followed in a more recent case of Feldaroll Foundry\r\nplc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd\u003csup\u003e81\u003c/sup\u003e; these contrasting cases still\r\nremain authorities. Though, it may be argued that there are contradictions\r\ntowards this approach. However, still the law has provided a certain approach\r\nin protecting the consumer who acts as a buyer as well and certainty towards\r\nthe law of implied terms that where can the implied term be excluded and where\r\nit cannot be excluded this kind of certainty may not be found in the Pakistani\r\nAct. As seen above it is still based on the concept of a limited liability as\r\nit is based on the ambit of the term that the seller worked with was \u0026quot;in\r\ngoods of that description\u0026quot; which has been an hindrance for providing\r\ncertainty in law and protection towards the seller.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.2.1.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eSatisfactory Quality replacing Merchantable Quality\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eFrom\r\nthat time on the Sale of Goods Act has gone through some major amendments and\r\nhas been replaced by the implied conditions that the goods need to be of\r\nsatisfactory quality. Now when ever has to sell a good in the course of his\r\nbusiness the goods must satisfy the satisfactory quality test, if the goods are\r\nnot of a satisfactory quality the buyer has to right to reject the goods, these\r\nnew provisions came into the Act after 1995. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK)\r\nwent under modification under the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1994\u003csup\u003e82\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nIt amended the previous provision of the 1893 Sale of Goods Act which was based\r\non the principle of merchantable quality. It can be seen that the term\r\nmerchantable quality drove from the merchants code, however, there was no\r\ndefinition provided about it in the Sale of Goods Act of 1893 (UK). However,\r\nthere was always a problem that whether the goods were of merchantable quality\r\nor not and to resolve this issue they had to look under the merchantable code\u003csup\u003e83\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwhich identified the provisions of whether the good had been merchantable or\r\nnot. The major problem to merchantable quality arose in today\u0027s situations when\r\nthe contracts for the goods are mostly with consumers. There was a clear\r\nuncertainty as to what would amount to be a merchantable quality while dealing\r\nwith a consumer\u003csup\u003e84\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, the judges tried to come up with the\r\nmeaning of merchantable as there no definition about it in the act, this could\r\nbe illustrated by the case of Jackson v Rotax Motor \u0026amp; Cycle Co\u003csup\u003e85\u003c/sup\u003e\r\ncame up with a meaning of merchantable as something which saleable under that\r\ndescription or something which can be resalable. However, according to the case\r\nof Bristol Tramways etc Carriage Co Ltd v Fiat Motors LTD\u003csup\u003e86\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nmerchantable quality was according to the perception of a reasonable buyer\r\nwould deemed to have accepted the goods under the description of the sale.\r\nMeaning the goods should be of such a quality that it would be accepted by the\r\nbuyer, who has a proper understanding of the description, characteristic of the\r\ngoods. However, if the buyer is not aware of the condition then the goods it\r\nwould not amount to be merchantable as illustrated in the case of Shine v\r\nGeneral Guarantee Corporation Ltd.\u003csup\u003e87\u003c/sup\u003e Another way to approach towards\r\nfinding whether a good is merchantable is to look at the reason for which the\r\ngoods were required than looking at what the buyer purpose was as illustrated\r\nin the case of Henry Kendall \u0026amp; Sons v William Lillico \u0026amp; Sons Ltd.\u003csup\u003e88\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nThough, it can be seen there is ambiguity towards what an merchantable quality\r\nas it can see from above that it can have several meanings which may not be\r\nsuitable to understand the precious meaning as each of them can have a\r\ncontradicting view of each other as in Henry\u0027s case the purpose of the buyer\r\nwas something else but still amounted to be of merchantable quality. To deal\r\nwith such an issue the Supply of Goods (Implied Term) Act 1973, first time\r\nintroduced the definition of merchantable quality in the statue which states:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Goods\r\nof any kind are of merchantable quality...if they are as fit for the purpose or\r\npurpose for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to\r\nexpect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if\r\nrelevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThough\r\nthis definition was not of a lot of use as well, as many controversy first\r\nissues was from the wording which states as above fit for all purpose, was the\r\ngoods bought need to fit for every purpose or should it just fit the purpose\r\nfor the purpose it was bought. Moreover, it was silent on areas related to\r\nplaces where the buyer was the consumer of the goods. The new amendments led to\r\nmore vagueness and uncertainty in the law due to which it was recommended to\r\nchange the term to acceptable quality in Law Commission Report Sale and Supply\r\nof Goods (Law Com No 160, Scot Law Com 104, Cmnd 137, 1987), however, this was\r\nnot done so. So finally to get rid of this issue the term satisfactory quality\r\nwas introduced in the statue from the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994\u003csup\u003e89\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nThe standards laid down would be judged according an objective approach to\r\nreasonable persons test\u003csup\u003e90\u003c/sup\u003e. It can be seen from the new amendments\r\nhave laid down conditions appropriate for cases of the quality of goods\u003csup\u003e91\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nThe amendment established a general standard that goods have to be reached\r\nunder the implied term\u003csup\u003e92\u003c/sup\u003e. The general rule of the new S14 of Sale of\r\nGoods Act 1979 (UK) contains provision towards the seller implementing them to\r\nprovide goods in a quality and fitness for the particular purpose as mentioned\r\nin the contract. Moreover, the new term satisfactory quality has been further\r\nis amended\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhen\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eacts\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nambit\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003econsumer this amendment has\r\nbeen laid down with the amendment from the Sales and Supply of Goods to\r\nConsumers Regulation 2002/3045\u003csup\u003e93\u003c/sup\u003e. Though it may be\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enoted\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efrom\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewording\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof the\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enew\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esection\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esome qualities of the merchantable quality\r\nhave been retained in the new satisfactory quality.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever\r\nthere are two important features\u003csup\u003e94\u003c/sup\u003e of the new term of satisfactory\r\nquality, the first ones comes from section 14(2A)\u003csup\u003e95\u003c/sup\u003e which describes\r\nthat standard would be of a reasonable person then what the person buying\r\nexpects, are considered while taking into account satisfactory\u003csup\u003e96\u003c/sup\u003e.\r\nMoreover, other relevant circumstances also needed to be taken into account\r\nsuch as description of goods and the price so that a proper guidance could be\r\ngiven if a goods falls in to the ambit of satisfactory quality. Second comes\r\nfrom s14 (2B)\u003csup\u003e97\u003c/sup\u003e provides a list of quality of the goods which may be\r\napplied in appropriate cases\u003csup\u003e98\u003c/sup\u003e. One of the main advantages of the\r\nnew terms is that it is flexible and can be used while looking at range of\r\ngoods being sold and is not limited to specific goods. Moreover, it may be said\r\nthat s 14(2B) follows the recommendation of the Law Commission Report of 1987\r\nregarding the Sale and Supply of Goods. While first examining the word in\r\nappropriate cases, it may be seen that a seller needs to satisfy the list of\r\ncriteria listed in section s14(2B). However, if the seller is not able to do\r\nso, it does not mean that the goods are not of satisfactory quality as it may\r\nbe said that the final test to come to conclusion is of a reasonable person\r\ntaking into account all reasonable circumstances with it.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\ngeneral rule of the new S14(2B) of Sale of Goods Act contains provision towards\r\nthe seller implementing them to provide goods in a quality and fitness for all\r\nthe purposes. While in the previous law the goods had to be fit for the one of\r\nthe purposes as for which it was being bought.\u003csup\u003e99\u003c/sup\u003e This amendment\r\ncould be seen from the Law Commission Report of 1987\u003csup\u003e100\u003c/sup\u003e as mentioned\r\nabove, however this may also be applicable in appropriate cases. The second\r\nitem is appearance and finish, though it may be said that this provision is\r\nfrom the previous law as the goods have to according to the appearance of the\r\nbuyer use and should fit in to the ambit of his use rather than a reasonable\r\nperson. The third limb is freedom from minor defects neither according to the\r\nprevious it would be a troublesome provision as a minor defect would amount the\r\ngoods nor to be merchantable quality as seen in the case of Winsley v\r\nWoodflied.\u003csup\u003e101\u003c/sup\u003e Though were the goods were reparable would not amount\r\nthe goods not to merchantable as they could be easy repaired as illustrated in\r\nthe case of Millars of Falkrik Ltd v Turpie.\u003csup\u003e102\u003c/sup\u003e The new amendment\r\nwhich here can be seen that was there is a minor defect it would not amount to\r\nnon-satisfactory quality this provision has been followed from the Law\r\nCommission Report\u003csup\u003e103\u003c/sup\u003e as well.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAnother\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elimb\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elist\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esafety\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eif\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\ngoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eare\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esafe to be used they would not amount to be of satisfactory quality.\r\nHowever, if the unsafe purpose is not mentioned into the contract the\r\nbuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emay not sue the seller. Moreover\r\nthe seller need provides the buyer with adequate safety protection instruction\r\notherwise the goods would be of unsatisfactory. The last limb of the subsection\r\nis of durability, though it may be seen that prior the amendment in 1994 there\r\nhad been a drastic need for an implied term in a contract for durability.\r\nMeaning when the goods have been delivered to the buyer they should be durable\r\nand they were at the time of contract, as previously there had been a lot of\r\nproblem in law due to the nonexistence of this implied term.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever,\r\nthe Pakistani Act till today is still based on the principle of merchantable\r\nquality as has been discussed above. There is a major need for an amendment in\r\nthis context as the law does not fit to today\u0027s circumstances as we can see\r\nthat to fit for the requirement the UK law has gone through some major\r\namendments. Pakistan should also follow the footsteps of UK in amending their\r\nlaw in regards to sales of goods.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eRemedies\r\n(Suits for breach of the contract)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhere\r\na seller has been in breach of a contract for sale of goods, it can be\r\ndemonstrated that the only remedies a buyer may have under the Pakistani Law is\r\nto reject the goods or at most, to obtain damages. Moreover, there is\r\ninsufficient protection for the seller where there has been a breach of\r\ncontract by a buyer. The previous chapter demonstrated that the most a seller\r\ncan get is for the buyer to accept the goods and pay him the full amount.\r\nHowever, the United Kingdom Law as to a breach of a sale of goods contract has\r\nprovided both buyers and sellers multiple remedies. As both countries are based\r\non common law and Pakistan was once part of a British colony, it would be a\r\nmajor improvement in Pakistani law if they incorporate these remedies into\r\ntheir commercial law and thereby provide better protection towards buyers and\r\nthe sellers, although Pakistani Law already has some common law remedies such\r\nas specific performance by virtue of its common law heritage. Furthermore, after\r\nthe amendments in the law protecting consumers under sale of goods contracts, a\r\nconsumer may be able to get additional remedies under UK law, though no such\r\nprotection can be provided in the Pakistani law. This chapter will focus on the\r\ndifferent remedies provided to the buyers and then to the sellers. There may be\r\nremedies which exist together or alternative remedies for one single breach\r\nwith the buyer deciding which remedy to exercise. UK law has provided a better\r\nsafeguard towards a buyer when a seller breaches the contract. However, there\r\nmay be remedies which a seller may exclude from the contract under the Unfair\r\nContract Terms Act 1977. Though, a seller may not be able to do so when the\r\nbuyer falls within the ambit of the consumer under the Unfair Terms in Consumer\r\nContract Regulations 1999.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.1 Remedies for the Buyer for a breach of contract\r\nin Pakistan: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eFirst\r\ncoming towards the Pakistani Sale of Goods Act 1930, according to the law there\r\na few remedies provided to the seller as well as to the buyer when it comes to\r\nremedies for a breach of contract of sales of good. First, we will be looking\r\nat the remedies that may be provided to a buyer if there has been such a\r\nbreach. The different types of remedies under the law are governed under\r\nChapter VI\u003csup\u003e104\u003c/sup\u003e, though it can be seen that there are only two types\r\nof remedies which are provided to the buyer against the seller\u003csup\u003e105\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nfirst is a suit by a buyer against a seller in case of non-delivery of the\r\ngoods which could be illustrated by law under section 57\u003csup\u003e106\u003c/sup\u003e. Where a\r\nseller refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003emay\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esue\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eseller\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edamages. However, if the seller makes it\r\nobvious to the buyer that he would not be delivering the goods; the buyer may\r\nrevoke the contract and may sue for damages.\u003csup\u003e107\u003c/sup\u003e Moreover, where\r\ntime\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eimportance\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe seller\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emakes\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elate\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edelivery\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe seller\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeen\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epaid up\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003emay\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eaccept\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003emay\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eclaim\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edamages.\u003csup\u003e108\u003c/sup\u003e In situations where a\r\nseller supplies\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebut\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esupply\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eshorter\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethan\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe original contract,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003estill\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe right\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esue\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eseller\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edamages\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efor the\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eloss\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nshort\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esupply\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003egoods,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebut\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enot for\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas a\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhole.\u003csup\u003e109\u003c/sup\u003e Though,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esituations\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhere there\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeen\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elate\r\ndelivery\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edue\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nbuyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhere\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edelivery\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecannot be\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003emade due to\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efault\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\r\nbuyer,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebuyer will\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eable\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esucceed in a claim\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edamages,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe breach\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe seller\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebecause of the fault of the\r\nseller but was because of the fault of the buyer.\u003csup\u003e110\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eThe second remedy available to a buyer\r\nin Pakistan if there has been a breach of a contract for the supply of goods is\r\nthat of specific performance under section 58 of Sale of Goods Act 1930\r\n(Pakistan). This remedy is only available to a buyer in situations where the\r\ngoods are already ascertainable and are specific. Specific performance is the\r\nremedy whereby the court orders the seller to perform his existing duty under\r\nthe contract which has been a breach because of his own fault. Though, there\r\nhas always been a question of in which situations a buyer can get this remedy,\r\nit can be seen that the onus is on the buyer to prove that the goods were\r\nascertainable and specific as seen in the case of Messrs Petro Commodities\r\n(Pvt) Ltd v Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan\u003csup\u003e111\u003c/sup\u003e. In cases where\r\ntime is of the essence and the seller has not been able to deliver the goods on\r\ntime and time is an implied condition of the contract the buyer may seek for\r\nspecific performance. In such a case a court will grant the remedy of specific\r\nperformance to the buyer as it was a condition of the contract.\u003csup\u003e112\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eThe third remedy available is for a\r\nbreach of warranty. Where there is an implied term in the contract and is\r\nbacked by warranty, the buyer does not have the right to reject the goods.\r\nMoreover, where there is a breach of a condition on the part of the seller the\r\nbuyer may treat this as a breach of warranty as per section 59 of Sale of Goods\r\nAct 1930 (Pakistan). According to this provision if a buyer is entitled to get\r\na price reduction or pay nothing if the loss is equal to the price and may also\r\nget damages if the damage suffered is more than the price of the goods.\u003csup\u003e113\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nAccording to sub section 59(b) a buyer may pay for the whole goods and may\r\nclaim for damages of what he has suffered. Moreover, in case where the buyer\r\nsuffers further loss, he will be able to recover damages for them as it was a\r\nresult of the breach committed by the seller.\u003csup\u003e114\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.2 Remedies for the Buyer for a breach of contract\r\nin United Kingdom: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nUnited Kingdom, the ambit of the liabilities imposed on the seller is more\r\nstringent and even where the seller in unaware of the breach he has caused he\r\nwould still be liable for it. There are various remedies a buyer can get if\r\nthere has been a breach of a sale of goods contract\u003csup\u003e115\u003c/sup\u003e. The first one\r\nis \u0027rescission and restitution\u0027; the main concept of this remedy is that the\r\ncontract is considered to be null and void from the beginning and both the\r\nparties are discharged from their obligations under the contract. This remedy\r\nis only available where the seller has made a misrepresentation, the\r\nmisrepresentation could be made fraudulently, or the seller could have been\r\nnegligent in describing the facts about the goods being sold. In either case he\r\nwould be held accountable and the contract would be held to have been avoided.\r\nEven if the seller is unaware that there was a fault in the goods he would\r\nstill be held accountable for the breach and the contract would become null and\r\nvoid. Moreover, the buyer may claim for damages for the loss he suffered due to\r\nthe breach of the contract. The remedy of rescission does not come alone it\r\ncomes with another of restitution both of these remedies are interlinked.\r\nRestitution is the return of any profit or benefit given to the parties as a\r\nresult of the contract which has been avoided thereby putting the parties into\r\nthe position they would have been in had the contract never come about. This is\r\nusually in the case of a buyer where he has paid the seller in advance for the\r\ngoods he has bought. Moreover, in scenarios where a property has passed to the\r\nbuyer and later the contract becomes null after rescission the property would\r\nautomatically be transferred back to the seller and the buyer is obliged to\r\nreturn the goods or benefits thereof.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSecondly,\r\nthere is \u0027rejection of the goods\u0027. From the term it can be easily understood\r\nthat it is a right of the buyer to reject the goods. However, this may only be\r\ndone if the goods are not according to Section 13\u003csup\u003e116\u003c/sup\u003e which deals\r\nwith sale by description. This will apply where the goods were not of their\r\ndescription or where the goods are not of satisfactory quality or fit for their\r\npurpose, as seen under section 14\u003csup\u003e117\u003c/sup\u003e. Wherever, there is a breach of\r\nan implied term, the buyer would have the right to reject the goods as\r\nillustrated in the case of Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, The\r\nHansa Nord\u003csup\u003e118\u003c/sup\u003e In addition, where time is of the essence and a seller\r\nis not able to deliver the goods on time the buyer may still be able to reject\r\nthe goods. This could be illustrated by the case of Kwei Tek Chao v British\r\nTraders \u0026amp; Shipper Ltd.\u003csup\u003e119\u003c/sup\u003e Moreover, in cases where the property\r\nhas been transferred to the buyer he may still be able to reject the goods if\r\nhe has not deemed to have accepted them\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eunder the provision of section 35\u003csup\u003e120\u003c/sup\u003e, as illustrated by the\r\ncase of McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd\u003csup\u003e121\u003c/sup\u003e. Where a buyer\r\naccepts defective goods, he may still be able to reject the goods after they\r\nhave been fixed by the seller as seen in the case of JH Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd\u003csup\u003e122\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nand the property in the goods will pass back to the seller. Though it can be\r\nargued that after the amendment in 1994\u003csup\u003e123\u003c/sup\u003e, the buyer may not be\r\nable to exercise such of his powers to reject the goods if they fall under the\r\nambit of the new subsections of (2A) and (2B)\u003csup\u003e124\u003c/sup\u003e as a qualification\r\nwould be needed for a right to reject as seen in the case of Shipton, Anderson\r\n\u0026amp; Co v Weil Bros \u0026amp; Co\u003csup\u003e125\u003c/sup\u003e. However, if the buyer falls within\r\nthe ambit of a consumer he may still be able to reject the goods even if the\r\ngoods fall under the above sections.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThirdly,\r\nit can be seen that in situations where a seller may not be able\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecomplete\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esome\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ehis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eobligations towards\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebuyer, the buyer has the right to suspend his payment until and unless\r\nthe seller fulfils his obligations. Practically speaking, this can only be done\r\nin cases where the buyer has still to pay the seller. However, in such\r\nscenarios it does not matter whether the breach was of an implied condition, or\r\nwhether the breach was a minor one or a major one. Until the\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eseller does not fulfil his obligation, the\r\nbuyer has the right to suspend his payment. This could even be seen under\r\nSection 28.\u003csup\u003e126\u003c/sup\u003e This is similar to Section 32\u003csup\u003e127\u003c/sup\u003e; however,\r\nthat does not have as wide a meaning as does Section 28.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThere\r\nare some remedies in the UK which are similar to the ones in Pakistan; namely\r\nrescission and restitution and specific performance. The remedy of rescission\r\nand restitution is almost similar to the remedy provided under section 57 of\r\nSale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan). A buyer has the right to terminate the\r\ncontract if the seller is in a breach of any of the obligations mentioned in\r\nthe contract. A buyer may do this even before the contract date ends, which\r\nwould entitle the buyer\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eget\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emoney\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eback\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efrom\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe seller\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eif\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ehe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epaid\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eany amount\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eadvance.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eMoreover,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esuch\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esituation\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epossession\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewill\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etransferred\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eback to\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eseller. In addition, the buyer may claim\r\ndamages for losses that he has suffered due to the seller\u0027s breach of the\r\ncontract. It may be usually in cases where the seller has not been able to\r\ndeliver the goods on time and the buyer has been told about this or has been\r\nobvious that the seller would not be able to deliver the goods on time, so\r\nrescission of the contract would terminate the contract before it ends as\r\nillustrated in section 51 of Sale of Goods Act 1979 (United Kingdom). Moreover,\r\nit could be seen to be implemented in the case of Melachrino v Nickoll \u0026amp;\r\nKnight.\u003csup\u003e128\u003c/sup\u003e Furthermore, in the case of Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v\r\nKamsing Knitting Factory\u003csup\u003e129\u003c/sup\u003e, where the seller was not able to\r\ndeliver the full goods as mentioned in the contract the contract was terminated\r\nin respect to the remaining goods and the buyer was awarded damages for the\r\nloss he suffered due to the remaining goods which he was entitled but were not\r\ndelivered.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSpecific\r\nPerformance is a remedy under common law which can be applied in both\r\ncountries; it is being followed under section 52 Sale of Goods Act 1979 in the\r\nUnited Kingdom and under section 58 Sale of Goods Act 1930(Pakistan). From the\r\nwording it can be seen that specific performance is remedy provided if the\r\ngoods were specific and ascertained and were not delivered to the buyer.\r\nHowever, if the goods are not ascertained the court would not provide the\r\nremedy of specific performance\u003csup\u003e130\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, where the remedy of\r\nspecific performance has been acquired the buyer may not be able to claim for\r\ndamages. In addition, in the English legal system it can be seen that it is\r\nunder the court\u0027s discretion to award this remedy if the court thinks that it\r\nis suitable to award to the buyer, the buyer does not have an automatic right\r\nto specific performance. This is not the case be found in Pakistan and can be\r\nfound in the wordings of section 52 of Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK). A major\r\ndifference which could be encountered between the Pakistani Law and UK Law when\r\nit comes to specific performance is when a sale of the goods is with a\r\nconsumer. It can be illustrated from the new Part 5A\u003csup\u003e131\u003c/sup\u003e which\r\napplies to contracts where the buyer acts as a consumer. It can be seen that a\r\nconsumer has been given additional right even in case of specific performance\r\nas he can order for specific performance and the courts have little or no\r\ndiscretion to award the remedy of specific performance when it comes to\r\nconsumer contracts as illustrated in the case of DR Harris.\u003csup\u003e132\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eA\r\nsimilar remedy for a buyer in both countries is for the action for damages for\r\nbreach of warranty, this is governed by section 53\u003csup\u003e133\u003c/sup\u003e, or where a\r\nbuyer elects to treat a breach of a condition as a breach of a warranty. The\r\nonly remedy available in such a situation is damages as the buyer may not be\r\nable to reject the goods. It may be seen while comparing this remedy between\r\nboth the countries that it is the same in all aspects as taking the first\r\naspect to be the reduction of price is the same as section 53(1)\u003csup\u003e134\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nand 59\u003csup\u003e135\u003c/sup\u003e as discussed above. However, the courts have taken a\r\nstricter approach as in the UK after the case of Hadely v Baxendale\u003csup\u003e136\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nin which the buyer could only recover the actual loss suffered in the ordinary\r\ncourse of events. Moreover, in case of breach of a term regarding quality the\r\nbuyer if he accepts the goods would only get the difference between the price\r\nhe would get and he actually got. Moreover, if the seller fixes the goods the\r\nbuyer would not be able to reject the goods and would not be able to recover\r\ndamages. This amendment was made in this section in 1994 by Sale and Supply of\r\nGoods (Implied Terms) Act 1994.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.3 Remedies for the Consumer for a breach of\r\ncontract in United Kingdom: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAs\r\nseen above in the remedy of Specific Performance major amendments were made for\r\nconsumer remedies as Part 5A\u003csup\u003e137\u003c/sup\u003e was introduced by the Sales and\r\nSupply of Consumers Regulations 2002\u003csup\u003e138\u003c/sup\u003e. It defines a consumer as\r\n\u0026quot;a natural person who is acting for purpose outside his trade, business or\r\nprofession\u0026quot;. It can be seen that sections 48A to 48F\u003csup\u003e139\u003c/sup\u003e have\r\nbeen included under this Act which have provided the additional remedies to the\r\nconsumer\u003csup\u003e140\u003c/sup\u003e. These remedies are available for a breach of contract\r\nrelating supply of goods. It means the goods do not conform according to\r\nsections 13, 14 and 15\u003csup\u003e141\u003c/sup\u003e. There has been a breach of an implied and\r\nexpress term of the contract, as these sections are conditions and the goods\r\nmust conform accordingly as seen under section 48F. If the goods do not conform\r\nwith the description illustrated a consumer can ask the seller to repair the\r\ngoods or may even get them replaced, the seller is obliged to do so within\r\nreasonable time period so that the buyer does not have go through any\r\ntroublesome period due to the seller\u0027s negligence and that the buyer does not\r\nhave to bear any additional cost. This could be illustrated by subsection 48B\r\nof Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK). Moreover, where the goods do not confirm a\r\nbuyer may go for a price reduction as illustrated under section 48C. However,\r\nthere are some conditions a buyer has to satisfy to before going for this\r\nremedy which can be seen under subsection (2) of section 48C. Moreover, the\r\ncourt has been given power to award these remedies in favor of the buyer even\r\nif the buyer may not seek towards them. In addition, it may be said that the\r\nconsumer has the right to reject the goods any time after the acceptance of the\r\ncontract as seen in the case of Clegg v Anderson.\u003csup\u003e142\u003c/sup\u003e However, it may\r\nbe said that it is no more a good law as in the case of Clegg there were\r\nspecial circumstances due to which he was allowed to reject the goods after 8\r\nmonths.\u003csup\u003e143\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThough\r\nit can be argued that the remedies provided in both countries are almost the\r\nsame, this is not accurate. The United Kingdom has provided better and wider\r\nprotection towards the buyer, moreover, there have been some additional\r\nremedies towards the buyer as seen above which if implanted in the Pakistani\r\nlaw would be able to provide for a fairer and more proportionate balance while\r\nhelping buyers when a seller has been in breach of a sale of goods contract. In\r\naddition the remedies provided by the Sale of Goods Act towards a consumer have\r\nbeen a major step towards the amendment of the sales law. However, there is no\r\nsuch law governing or protecting a right of a consumer under sales law in\r\nPakistan. An amendment towards consumer is essential which should be taken in\r\norder to get the consumer out of the rigid situation as a consumer is treated\r\nin a manner similar as the buyer in any scenario when it comes towards the\r\ngoods under a sale of goods contract and this does not into consideration the\r\nweak bargaining position of consumers.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.4 Remedies for the Seller for a breach of\r\ncontract in Pakistan: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile\r\ncoming towards the second part of the chapter which is concerned with the\r\nremedies provided to a seller. Seller has the right to bring a claim against\r\nthe buyer for his breach of a sale of goods contract though it may be seen that\r\nthe buyer has been provided the same remedy. A seller may file suit against the\r\nbuyer in situations where the buyer does not pay for the goods bought,\r\nmoreover, where the buyer refuses to take delivery, and in places where the\r\nbuyer refuses to accept the goods\u003csup\u003e144\u003c/sup\u003e. The remedies provided to the\r\nseller fall in the same ambit as that of the buyer in which he may be able to\r\nrescind or terminate the contract or he may still continue with the contract\r\nand claim for damages. First we would look at these remedies according to the\r\nPakistani Law and then according to the UK law.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nfirst type of remedy is where the buyer does not pay the seller\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eseller\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efiles\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esuit\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eagainst\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eseller may bring\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethis \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003esuit\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eagainst\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer under\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esection\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e55\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof Sale of Goods Act\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e1930 (Pakistan), the suit can only be brought\r\nin two situations. First,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhere\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eproperty\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epassed to\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyer, this may happen where\r\nthe goods are in the actual possession of the buyer and second in situations\r\nwhere the property is still in possession of the seller but the legal title has\r\nbeen transferred to the buyer. In the first scenario the seller may only file a\r\nsuit against the price, while in the second scenario the seller may stop the\r\ndelivery until the buyer pays the full price.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSecond,\r\ntype of remedy is in situations where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses\r\nto accept and pay for the goods. The seller may bring a claim against him under\r\nsection 56 of Sale of Goods Act 1930 (Pakistan), moreover, the seller may bring\r\na suit for price as well according to the second limb of section 55. In a case\r\nwhere the buyer fails to accept the goods then the seller can claim any money\r\nwhich has been left from the buyer moreover, he may claim for damages incurred\r\nin getting the rest of the amount. However, before bringing a claim a seller\r\nhas to fulfill all his duties under the contract.\u003csup\u003e145\u003c/sup\u003e Situations,\r\nwhere there is a condition on time to take delivery and the buyer failed to\r\ntake the delivery within the specified time period, the buyer would be held\r\nliable in such situation and would have to pay damages towards the seller for\r\nthe late acceptance of the goods.\u003csup\u003e146\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.5 Remedies for the Seller for a breach of\r\ncontract in United Kingdom:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhen\r\nlooking at the seller\u0027s remedies in the United Kingdom, it may be noticed that\r\nthe seller remedies are similar as to the one in Pakistan and no major\r\ndifference which can be seen in this area. While seeing the first remedy\r\navailable to the seller against the buyer is an action against the buyer for\r\nthe price. A seller may avail this remedy under section 49 of the Sale of Goods\r\nAct 1979(UK). Moreover the first aspect of the remedy is similar as well as\r\nwhere the property has been passed to the buyer a seller may sue to the whole\r\nprice of the goods which have been delivered to the goods. Where the goods have\r\nbeen transferred to the buyer but still in possession to the seller he may\r\nstill sue for the payment. Though there is a difference when we see sub section\r\nof section 49(2) where the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of\r\ndelivery, even if the property has not passed to the buyer the seller may sue\r\nthe buyer for the payment which could be seen in the case of Workman Clark\r\n\u0026amp; Co Ltd v Lloyds Brazileno.\u003csup\u003e147\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nsecond remedy, which is similar to the Pakistani commercial law, is action for\r\ndamages for non-acceptance of goods by the buyer, where the buyer has\r\nwrongfully neglected to accept and pay for the goods under section 50(1) Sale\r\nof Goods Act 1979 (UK). The damages\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eare\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emeasured\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhich\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eoccur\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enaturally\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edue\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebreach\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eand are calculated according to Hadley v Baxendale.\u003csup\u003e148\u003c/sup\u003e Though\r\na difference which can be exerted between the different countries\u0027 law is the\r\naddition of the available market for the goods, the measure of damages would be\r\ncalculated the difference between the market price and the price the goods have\r\nbeen sold as seen in the case of Charter Sullivan.\u003csup\u003e149\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAfter\r\nseeing the above we can come to a conclusion that there have been various\r\nremedies which have been amended in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (UK) in respect\r\nto a buyer and some major amendments have been seen in respect of consumer and\r\nbuyer but there has been not any significant change when from the sellers\u0027\r\nprospective.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eConclusion:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt\r\nhas been seen above that in comparison to the UK Sale of Goods\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAct\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e1979,\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ePakistani\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoverning\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esale of\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods as encapsulated in Pakistan Sale of\r\nGoods Act of 1930 is quite inadequate in terms of the protections it provides\r\nto the parties. Commercial\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eapproach\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecourts\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etransactions\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebetween end-users and merchants have come a long way since 1930; the\r\nmaxim \u0027Caveat Emptor\u0027 no longer holds as much sway as it did when buyers were\r\nthemselves mostly merchants and thus expected by the courts to be reasonably\r\nwell-placed to protect their own interests when entering into contracts for the\r\nsale and purchase of goods. It is suggested therefore that the Pakistan Sale of\r\nGoods Act of 1930 be amended to incorporate some of the developments that have\r\ntaken place in the last eighty-four years.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nincorporation of Section 13(1) of the UK Sale of Goods Act of 1979, which deals\r\nwith the description of goods sold is an essential first\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003estep;\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eamendment\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewould \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003emean\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eimplied\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eterms as\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto fitness\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe goods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewould\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eonly\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecapable\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebreached if the buyer relies upon the description provided by the seller\r\nprovided and where the buyer relies on his own expertise, he would be unable to\r\nestablish this reliance.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSection\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e14\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eUK\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \r\n\u003c/span\u003eSale\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eGoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eAct\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e1979\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ealso needs to be incorporated into the Pakistan Sale of Goods Act 1930.\r\nWhere\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esellers\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eact\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecourse\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebusiness,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethey\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emust be\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eheld\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eresponsible\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor the \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003equality\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efitness\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003etheir goods especially\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhen\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etheir\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebuyers\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eare\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003econsumers\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebecause equity demands that\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eany\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eloss\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eor liability\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003earises\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efrom\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecommercial\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eactivity\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eor venture\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eshould\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eplaced at\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efeet\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eentity\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eresponsible\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor that\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecommercial\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eventure.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eOf\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecourse\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eany\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eamendment\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edeals\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewith this\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003easpect\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewill\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehave\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecarefully\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edefine\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe limits\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eare\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe phrase \u0027in the course of business\u0027 so as to prevent uncertainty in\r\nthe law. If the amendment takes its cue from English law as it currently\r\nstands, \u0027in the course of business\u0027 is a phrase that is to be interpreted\r\nextremely widely.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAn\r\neven more essential amendment has to do with changing the test\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eapplies\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003equality\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eThe term \u0027merchantable quality\u0027 has to be replaced with the term\r\n\u0027satisfactory quality\u0027. This is more than a gloss because this change is\r\nessential in order to bring Pakistani law out of era of merchant to merchant\r\ntransactions and into the modern consumer-centric legal age. Section 14(2B) of\r\nthe UK Sale of Goods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAct of 1979 was\r\nalso discussed above; it provides a list of aspects which are to be considered\r\nwhen one seeks to determine the quality of goods being sold. Such a list is\r\nhelpful in determining questions that arise in situations where the quality of\r\ngoods being sold is disputed and ought along with the other salient features of\r\nSection 14 of the UK Sale of Goods Act of 1979. The amendment in this case\r\nwould involve substituting the provisions of Section 14 of the UK Sale of Goods\r\nAct of 1979 in place of Section 16 of the Pakistan Sale of Goods Act of 1930.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile\r\nexploring the differences between remedies available to buyers in both\r\njurisdictions, special focus was placed on the rights of consumer buyers under\r\nUK Sale of Goods Act of 1979. This is because not only is this particular\r\naspect of the UK Sale of Goods Act of 1979 as it stands now, a novel concept in\r\nEnglish commercial law, it also has great\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eramifications\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecommercial\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewhole.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ePrior to this change,\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eEnglish\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edid\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edifferentiate\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebetween\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebuyers\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe basis\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhat\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etheir purpose\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epurchasing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoods\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewas. The Sales and Supply of Consumers Regulations 2002 which aimed to\r\nharmonize laws across the European Union that dealt with commercial\r\ntransactions that involved consumers as the buyers introduced this\r\ndifferentiation for the first time.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eGiven\r\nthe absence in Pakistan of any statute similar to the English Sales and Supply\r\nof Consumers Regulations 2002, the protection afforded to consumers is\r\nrelatively limited. That being said, on a provincial level, legislation such as\r\nthe Islamabad Consumer Protection Act of 1995, the N.W.F.P Consumer Protection\r\nAct of 1997, the Baluchistan Consumer Protection Act of 2003, Punjab Consumer\r\nProtection Act of 2005 and the Sindh Consumer Protection Ordinance of 2007 have\r\nestablished tribunals known as Consumer Courts with their own procedures and\r\nremedies. While legislation for the benefit of consumers is both a necessary and\r\nwelcome addition to the statutory roll, it is suggested that the disparity\r\nbetween the procedures and provisions of these provincial enactments has\r\nstultified the law and caused certain lacunae. The Pakistan Sale of Goods Act\r\nof 1930 is a federal law that applies throughout Pakistan whereas the statutes\r\nlisted above only apply within the respective jurisdictions. An amendment to\r\nthe Pakistan Sale of Goods Act of 1930 by insertion of the protections included\r\nin Part 5A of the UK Sale of Goods Act of 1979 would help to secure a basic\r\nminimum threshold throughout the country for the rights of consumer buyers in\r\nsale of goods agreements. This would also have the added advantage of diverting\r\nthese cases from Consumer Courts to actual Civil Courts which are better placed\r\nto deal with such commercial disputes. Consumer Courts would also benefit as\r\nthey would be able to focus their manpower and resources to more appropriate\r\ndisputes such as those between manufacturers of defective products which have\r\ncaused losses or damage to consumers.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nessence therefore it is recommended that Part 5A of the UK Sale of Goods Act of\r\n1979 be incorporated into the Pakistan Sale of Goods Act of 1930 and thereby\r\nprovide consumer buyers with the right to have damaged goods replaced or\r\nreplaced in accordance with the provisions of 48A to 48F.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nresults of these amendments would, it is to be hoped, empower buyers without\r\nemasculating sellers so as to impose a new standard based on commercial\r\nfairness as much as it is based on commercial certainty. In the long run, if\r\nthe Pakistan Sale of Goods Act of 1930 is so amended, it can be expected that\r\nsale of goods that are unsatisfactory in quality will decline because business\r\npractices will change to reflect the higher standards that the courts shall\r\nimpose.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBIBLIOGRAPHY\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eStatutes:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSale of\r\nGoods (Amendment) Act 1995 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSales and\r\nSupply of Goods Act 1994 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSales and\r\nSupply of Goods to Consumers Regulation 2002/3045\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSale of\r\nGoods Act 1893 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSale of\r\nGoods Act 1930 (Pakistan)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSale of\r\nGoods Act 1979 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSupply of\r\nGoods (Implied Term) Act 1973 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eTrade\r\nDescription Act 1968 (United Kingdom)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eUnfair\r\nConsumer Contracts Regulations 1999\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eUnfair\r\nContract Terms Act 1977 (United Kingdom):\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCases:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eAgha\r\nSaifuddin Khan v Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited 1997 CLC 302\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eAhmed\r\nCorporation v Messrs The International Food Grain and Oil Seed PLD 1973 Kar.\r\n361\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eAmara\r\nSeshayya \u0026amp; Bros v Chalavadi Venkaswami AIR 1935 Mad 619\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eArcos Ltd\r\nv E.A. Romaasen \u0026amp; Sons [1933] AC 470\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eAshington\r\nPiggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441, [1971] All ER847, HL\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eAswan\r\nEngineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 135\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eBari Rice\r\nMills Ltd v Passco 2007 CLC 1062\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eBari Rice\r\nMills Ltd v Passco 2007 CLD 857\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eBeale v\r\nTaylor [1967] 3 All ER 253: [1967] 1 WLR 1193\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eBoyter v\r\nThomson [1995] 2 AC 628,HL\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCarriage\r\nCo Ltd v Fiat Motors Ltd [1910] 2 KB 831\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCehave NV\r\nv Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, The Hansa Nord [1976] QB 44 CA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCharter\r\nSullivan [1957] 2 QB 117\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eClegg v\r\nAndersson T/A Nordic Marine [2003] EWCA Civ 320\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCouchman\r\nv Hill [1947] 1 KB 534\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCurtis v\r\nChemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eDR Harris\r\n[2003] 119 LQR 541\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eFeldaroll\r\nFoundry plc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 747\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eGardiner\r\nv Grey (1815) 4 Camp 144\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eGrant v\r\nAustralian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eHadely v\r\nBaxendale [1854] 9 Exch 341\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eHarlington\r\n\u0026amp; Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eHeilbut,\r\nSymons \u0026amp; Co v Buckleton [1913] AC 30\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eHenry\r\nKendall \u0026amp; Sons v William Lillico \u0026amp; Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31, HL\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eHughes v\r\nHall [1981] RTR 430\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJackson v\r\nRotax Motor \u0026amp; Cycle Co [1910] 2 KB 937,CA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJewson\r\nLtd v Boyham [2003] EWCA Civ 1030\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJH\r\nRitchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9, [2007] 1 WLR 670\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJoseph\r\nTravers \u0026amp; Sons Ltd v Longel Ltd. (1947) 64 TLR 150\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eKwei Tek\r\nChao v British Traders \u0026amp; Shipper Ltd [1954] 2QB 459\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eL\u0027Estrange\r\nv Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMcDougall\r\nv Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMelachrino\r\nv Nickoll \u0026amp; Knight [1920] 1 KB 693\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMessers\r\nFairland Export Syndicate v Messrs Bengal Oil Mills Ltd PLD 1970 Kar. 125\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMessrs\r\nPetro Commodities (PVT) Ltd v Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan PLD 1998 Kar.\r\n1\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMillars\r\nof Falkrik Ltd v Turpie [1976] SLT 66\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMoore\r\n\u0026amp; Co v Landauer \u0026amp; Co [1921] 2 KB 519\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eNational\r\nBank of Pakistan v Fatima Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd 2000 CLC 729\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eNicholson\r\nand Venn v Smith Marriott [1947] 177 LT 189\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ePakistan\r\nIndustrial Development Corporation v Aziz Qurashi PLD 1965 Kar. 202\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eParamount\r\nCorporation v Haji Moosa \u0026amp; Haji Omer PLD 1954 Sind 32\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eR \u0026amp; B\r\nCustoms Brokers Co Ltd V United Dominion Trust Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 321\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eRallo\r\nBrothers and Coney Ltd v Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd 1987 CLC 83\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eRandell v\r\nNewson (1877) 2 QBD 102, CA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eRe Wait\r\n[1927] 1 CH 606\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eReardon\r\nSmith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen- Tangen [1976] 3 All ER 570, [1976] 1 WLR 989\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eS.Zahur\r\nAhmed v Howards (Coloney) Ltd PLD 1964 Kar. 608\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSanam\r\nNarayanamurthi v Manpalli Nageswara Rao AIR 1941 Mad 108\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSham\r\nSunder and Sons v Ram Chand Spinning AIR 1957 Punj.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e90\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eShine v\r\nGeneral Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1988] 1 All ER\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e911\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eShipton,\r\nAnderson \u0026amp; Co v Weil Bros \u0026amp; Co [1912] 1 KB 574\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eStevenson\r\nv Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSultan\r\nMahmood v Habib Bank Ltd 2001 MLD 1897\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eSumner\r\nPermain \u0026amp; Co v Webb \u0026amp; Co [1922] 1 KB 55,63\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eTai Hing\r\nCotton Mill Ltd v Kamsing Knitting Factory [1979] AC\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e91\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eVarely v\r\nWhipp [1900] 1 QB 513\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eVigers\r\nBros v Sanderson Bros (1901) 1 KB 608.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eWafaq-i-Pakistan\r\nv Awanunnas [1988] SCMR 2041\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eWinsley v\r\nWoodflied [1929] NZLR 480\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eWorkman\r\nClark \u0026amp; Co Ltd v Lloyds Brazileno [1908] 1 KB 968,\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eOther Sources: \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;The\r\nMerchandise Marks Act Amendment Bill\u0026quot;. (1893, Apr 28). The Manchester\r\nGuardian (1828-1900), 4. Retrieved from:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/483128067?ac\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecountid=14540 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA, L. C.\r\n(1894, Jan 01). \u0026quot;Legislation and Law in 1893\u0026quot;. The Manchester\r\nGuardian (1828-1900), 6. Retrieved from:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uklogin?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/483250679?ac\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecountid=14540 \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA.\r\nNaidoo, (2011) \u0026quot;Consumer remedies following the sale of faulty\r\ngoods\u0026quot;. Journal of Business Law, (2011) no 8 Nov, pp. 804-815\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA.\r\nWilson, (2007). \u0026quot;Remedies for faulty goods: less would be more\u0026quot;.\r\nConsumer Policy Review, 17(2), 52-55. Business Source Premier\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA.B.\r\nMalik, The Sale of Goods Act, 1930: Amendment \u0026amp; Case Law Up-To-Date, Punjab\r\nLaw Book House (Pakistan 2012)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA.Dar,\r\n\u0026quot;Let The Buyer Beware\u0026quot;, Dawn News Published 6 Jan 2009 Retrieved\r\nfrom:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003ehttp://www.dawn.com/news/437635/let-the-buyer-beware\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eA.M\r\nChoudhry, The Sale of Goods Act New Revised Edition, PLD Publishers(Pakistan\r\n2013)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eBenjamin\u0027s\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eSale of Goods 8th Edition (Edited by M.Bridge\r\n2010) Thomas Reuters(Legal) Limited Sweet and Maxwell 531-664\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eC. B.\r\nJean, L.F. Kin \u0026amp; Kelvin, \u0026quot;Amendments to the Sale of Goods Act: A\r\nCritical Analysis\u0026quot;; 18 Sing. L. Rev. (1997) 172\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eC.Twigg-Flesner,\r\n(2002), \u0027New strings on the bow: consumer guarantees\u0027, Consumer Policy Review,\r\n12, 3, p. 88, Business Source Premier\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eD. I.\r\nBainbridge, \u0026quot;Changes to the UK law relating to contracts for the sale and\r\nsupply of goods\u0026quot;. Computer Law \u0026amp; Security Review, Volume 11, Issue 2,\r\nMarch-April 1995, Pages 95-97\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eFinal\r\nReport of the Committee on Consumer Protection (1962 Cmnd\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e1781),\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epara\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e441;\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e1969\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eLaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCom\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eReport No 24, paras 23-25\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eGoode on\r\nCommercial Law, Edited by E. McKendrick, (4th edn, Penguin 2010)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eH.\r\nJOHNSON, (1996) \u0026quot;Recent Developments In The Law of Sale\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand Unfair Contract Terms\u0026quot;, Managerial\r\nLaw, Vol. 38 Iss: 2, pp.1 - 32\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJ.\r\nBeatson, A. Burrows \u0026amp; J. Cartwright, Anson\u0027s Law of Contract, 29th Edition\r\nOxford University Press (2010) 159-165 192-215\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eJ.M.\r\nPaterson, \u0026quot;The New Consumer Guarantee Law and the Reasons for Replacing\r\nthe Regime of Statutory Implied Terms in Consumer Transactions\u0026quot;. Melbourne\r\nUniversity Law Review. 35.1 (Apr. 2011): p252\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eL.S.Sealy\r\n\u0026amp; R.J.Hooley, Commercial Law: Text, Case and Material 4th edn (Oxford\r\nUniversity Press 2009) 392-486\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eLaw\r\nCommission Report of 1987 regarding the Sale and Supply of Goods para 3.42\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eLaw\r\nCommission Report of 1987 regarding the Sale and Supply of Goods para 3.36\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eLaw\r\nCommission Report Sale and Supply of Goods (Law Com No 160, Scot Law Com 104,\r\nCmnd 137, 1987)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eM. G.\r\nStrub (1989). \u0026quot;The Convention on the International Sale of Goods:\r\nAnticipatory Repudiation Provisions and Developing Countries\u0026quot;. International\r\nand Comparative Law Quarterly, 38, pp 475-501.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eM. Hogg,\r\n(2003). \u0026quot;The Consumer\u0027s Right to Rescind under the Sale of Goods Act: A\r\nTale of Two Remedies\u0026quot;. Scots Law Times, (News) 277\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eM.G.Hussain,\r\nThe Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) Manzoor Law Book House (Pakistan)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eN. Abass,\r\nThe Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930): With Commentary Civil \u0026amp; Criminal Law\r\nPublication. (Pakistan)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eNeo \u0026amp;\r\nS. S. Dora, \u0026quot;The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1996: Satisfactory Quality,\r\nan Undivided Share in a Bulk and Other Amendments\u0026quot;. 9 SAcLJ (Singapore\r\nAcademy of Law Journal) (1997) 362\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eP S\r\nAtiyah, J.N. Adams \u0026amp; H. MacQueen, The Sale of Goods 11th Edition (2005)\r\nPearson Education Limited 149- 314\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eR. Stone,\r\nThe Modern Law of Contract. 8th Edition, Routledge Cavendish 2009 266-338\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eR.Bradgate,\r\nCommercial Law 3\u0027d edition Butterworths (London 2000), 219-223, 271-337\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eS. M.\r\nWaddams, \u0026quot;The Strict Liability of Suppliers of Goods.\u0026quot; The\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eModern\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eLaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eReview,\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eVol.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e37, No. 2 (Mar., 1974), pp. 154-174\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eS.H.\r\nQazi, The Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) Revised and Enlarged Edition, Irfan\r\nLaw Book House (Pakistan 2009)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eW.C.H\r\nErvine, (2003), \u0026quot;The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations\r\n2002\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.7pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eScots\r\nLaw Times, (News).\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"