Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 187 , 16 , 13

Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)

Section:

  Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 187---Implied authority---Presumption---Provisions of'S.187 Contract Act provide room for inferring from circumstances of a given case that an agent might have an implied authority on behalf of his principal in a contract for sale of goods---Defendant's agent receiving goods and issuing receipts would give an impression that the goods were in perfect order and that such agent had implied authority to do so. Fazal Illahi v. East Indian Railway Company 19 A.L J 654; Persram Bulchand v. Jodhpur Bikaneer Railway Co. 134 IC 1931 and Partab Narain v. The Jute Mills through Behari Lal and Kunj Behari Lai 25 LJ 724 rel. Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)--- ----S. 16---Implied conditions as to quality and fitness of goods---Silence as to specification of goods---Effect---Where contract was-silent as to specification of goods, matter could be decided only by applying provisions of S.16, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which speaks of implied conditions as to the quality and fitness of goods---Implied condition when not to be pressed into service. Proviso to subsection (1) of section 16, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 envisages that in the ease of sale of articles as under a patent or trade name, there was no implied condition as to their fitness for any particular purpose. Likewise proviso to subsection (2) thereof lays down that there would be no implied condition as regards the defects if the buyer had examined the goods and those defects ought to have been revealed. Sale of Goods Act (111 of 1930)--- ----S. 13---Acceptance of goods by buyer---Effect of breach of condition---Where sale was not by description or sample, same was essentially one of implied condition or warranty under S.13, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, whereby when a buyer accepted the goods or part thereof, breach of any condition could not be treated as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless of course, there was an express or implied term to that effect---Where defendant had accepted the goods and made payment for a part thereof, he could not be permitted to repudiate the contract or even to reject the remaining goods. Abdul Aziz…