CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES 1

• CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES 1
  BUSINESS LAW
  
  
• CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES(12(1)
• A STIPULATION IN A CONTRACT OF SALE WITH REFERENCE TO GOODS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF MAY OF A CONDITIONS OR A WARRANTY. STIPULATIONS CAN BE OF TWO TYPES:-

1. CONDITIONS
2. WARRANTIES

• CONDITIONS ( SEC12(2))
• CONDITIONS (SEC12(2) MEANS A STIPULATION ESSENTIAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT, THE BREACH OF WHICH GIVES RISE TO A RIGHT TO TREAT THE CONTRACT AS REPUDIATED.

1. ESSENTIALS OF A CONDITION
2. ESSENTIAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE
3. NON FULFILLMENT CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE
4. IT GIVES RIGHT TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT AND CLAIM DAMAGES

• WARRANTIES( SEC 12(3))
• IS A STIPULATION COLLATERAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT, THE BREACH OF WHICH GIVES RISES TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BUT NOT TO RIGHT TO REJECT THE GOODS AND TREAT THE CONTRACT AS REPUDIATED.
• ESSENTIALS OF A WARRANTY:-

1. COLLATERAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT
2. CAUSES DAMAGES TO AGGRIEVED PARTY
3. CAN ONLY CLAIM DAMAGES

• STIPULATION OF TIME
• AS TO TIME OF PAYMENT
• OTHER STIPULATION AS TO THE TIME E.G. WITH REGARD TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, DELIVERY OF GOODS ETC
• WHEN CONDITION TO BE TREATED AS WARRANTY
• VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY BUYER: X AGREES TO SELL Y 500 BAGS OF PARTICULAR QUALITY OF BASMATI RICE  AT 5000 BUT HE SUPPLIED SECOND QUALITY @4000. IT IS BREACH OF CONDITION BUT BUYER INSTEAD OF REJECTING TREATED AS BREACH OF WARRANTY AND ACCEPTED THE GOODS AND CLAIM DAMAGES OF RS 1000 PER BAG.
• TREATING THE CONDITION AS WARRANTY: X AGREED TO SUPPLY Y 4000 METERS AT THE RATE OF RS 30 PER METER BUT SUPPLIED MEDIUM QUALITY THE PRICE OF WHICH IS 15 RS,HERE BREACH OF CONDITION BUT BUYER INSTEAD OF REJECTING TREATED AS BREACH OF WARRANTY AND ACCEPTED THE GOODS AND CLAIM DAMAGES OF RS 15 PER METER

• ACCEPTING OF THE GOODS BY BUYER:UNDER INDIVISIBLE CONTRACT THE BUYER LOSES HIS RIGHT TO REJECT THE GOODS IF HE ACCEPT A PART OF IT
• BUT WHERE THE CONTRACT IS DIVISIBLE AND EVEN THOUGH THE BUYER HAS ACCEPTED A PART OF THE GOODS,HE CAN STILL EXERCISE TO REJECT THE GOODS EVEN IN INSTALLMENT THE BUYER CAN REJECT THE QUANTITY UNDER ANY INSTALLMENT
• EXPRESS CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES

1. EXPRESS
2. IMPLIED: WHERE THE CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES ARE APPLICABLE IN A CONTRACT OF SALE BYOPERATIONS OF LAW. THEY  DO NOT FORM PART OF CONTRACT OF SALE AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES BUT THEY AUTOMATICALLY COME INTO EXISTENCE BY OPERATION OF LAW.

• IMPLIED CONDITIONS
• CONDITION S TO TITLE SECTION 14
• IMPLIED CONDITION ON THE PART OF THE SELLER THAT IN CASE OF SALE,HE HAS A RIGHT  TO SELL GOODS EVEN IN AGREEMENT TO SALE,HE WILL HAVE TO SELL THE GOODS AT STIPULATED TIME. IF HE HAS NO RIGHT,THE BUYER HAS TO RETURN THE GOODS OWNER AND BUYER CAN CLAIM THE PRICE.
• SITUATIONS:

1. HE MAY NOT THE OWNER OF THE GOODS SOLD
2. HE MAY BE OWNER BUT YET DUE TO CERTAIN REASONS HE MAY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT SELL
3. ROWLAND V DIVALL

• A PURCHASES A MOTOR CAR FROM B. HE HAS TO RETURN BACK TO THE TRUE OWNER BECAUSE B HAD OBTAINED THE CAR BY THEFT. A COULD RECOVER THE PRICE

• CONDITION OF SALE BY DESCRIPTION(15)
• SALE BY DESCRIPTION:-  RULE IS BASED ON THE MAXIM,’ IF YOU CONTRACT TO SELL PEAS,YOU CAN NOT OBLIGE A PARTY TO TAKE BEANS. IMPLIED GOODS SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH DESCRIPTION. DESCRIPTION HAS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT IT MEANS PARTICULAR CLASS,OR KIND OR VARIETY OF GOODS
• A CONTRACT OF SALE OF ESTEEM CAR-2006 MODEL IS SALE BY DESCRIPTION
• THE  DESCRIPTION INCLUDE MANY SITUATIONS:-

1. BUYER HAS NOT SEEN THE GOODS ( VARLEY V WHIPP)
2. THE BUYER HAS SEEN BUT RELY ON THE STATEMENT OF SELLER(NICHOLSON AND VENN V SMITH MARRIT)
3. PACKING OF GOODS ALSO FORMS APART OF  THE DESCRIPTION

• CONDITION OF SALE BY DESCRIPTION(15)
• THE BUYER HAS NEVER SEEN THE GOODS:-
• VARLEY V WHIPP
• IN AGREEMENT TO SALE, A REAPING SECOND HAND MACHINE WHICH WAS NOT SEEN BY THE BUYER,THE SELLER ASSURED THAT IT IS ONLY ONE YEAR OLD AND USED TO CUT ABOUT 50 ACRES BUT IT WAS VERY OLD AND HAD BEEN REPAIRED SO BUYER WAS ENTITLED TO REJECT IT
• THE BUYER HAS SEEN THE GOODS BUT HE RELIED ON WHAT IS TOLD TO HIM;
• NICHOLSON AND VENN V SMITH MARRIT
• AT AN AUCTION THERE WAS SALE OF SET OF NAPKINS AND TABLE CLOTH BELONGING TO 17 TH CENTURY,X WHO WAS DEALER IN ANTIQUE SAW AND PURCHASED AND LATER ON IT WAS FOUND THAT THESE BELONG TO 18 TH CENTURY NOT 17 TH CENTURY SO HE WAS ENTITLED TO REJECT THE GOODS
• CONDITION OF SALE BY DESCRIPTION(15)
• PACKING OF GOODS ALSO FORM PART OF DESCRIPTION:-D AGREED TO SELL THE P TEA IN CHESTS CONTAINING 80 POUNDS OF TEA. S SUPPLIED TEA CHESTS CONTAINING 76 POUNDS OF TEA. IT WAS BREACH OF THE CONDITIONS AS DESCRIPTION. P WAS ENTITLED TO REJECT THE GOODS
• SALE BY SAMPLE AS WELL AS DESCRIPTION

·         IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THE GOODS SHALL CORRESPOND BOTH WITH THE SAMPLE AS WELL AS THE DESCRIPTION.

·         NICHOL V GODTS

·         N AGREED TO SELL TO G SOME OIL DESCRIBED AS “ FOREIGN REFINED RAPE OIL” WARRANTED ONLY EQUAL TO SAMPLE, N DELIVERED OIL EQUAL TO THE QUALITY OF SAMPLE BUT IT WAS NOT FOREIGN REFINED OIL. SO G WAS ENTITLED TO REJECT IT

•                         CONDITION AS TO QUALITY OR FITNESS
• CONDITIONS AS TO QUALITY OR FITNESS:-IT WILL OPERATE IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED:-

1. REQUIRE THE GOODS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
2. THAT IS INFORMED TO SELLER
3. RELIES ON SELLER’S SKILL OR JUDGMENT
4. THE  SELLER’S BUSINESS IS TO SELL SUCH GOODS

·         GRANT V AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS LTD

·         P A DOCTOR PURCHASED FROM A RETAILER TWO WOOLEN UNDERPANTS MANUFACTURED BY D/ NEXT DAY AFTER WEARING,HE BECAME ILL THAT WAS CAUSED BY A CHEMICAL IRRITANT WHICH D FORGOT TO REMOVE IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE.

• E. W EVANS V S. BENJAMIN A SOLD A REFRIGERATOR TO B. IT PERFORMED ALL THE FUNCTION BUT FAILED TO MAKE ICE
• WHERE HOWEVER THE GOODS ARE SOLD UNDER THE PATENT OR TRADE NAME THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONDITION AS TO FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.WHEN A PATENT SMOKE CONSUMING FURNACE WAS ORDERED BY ITS PATENT NAME AND LATER ON FOUND TO BE USELESS, NOTHING CAN BE DONE IN THIS MATTER
• CONDITIONS AS TO MERCHANT ABILITY
• MERCHANT ABILITY HAS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT. IN ORDER TO BE MERCHANTABLE THE ARTICLE MUST BE OF SUCH QUALITY AND IN SUCH CONDITIONS THAT REASONABLE MAN WOULD ACCEPT THE ARTICLE AS PERFORMANCE OF THE PROMISE
• CONDITION:-

1. GOODS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY DESCRIPTION
2. FROM A SELLER WHO DEALS IN GOODS OF THAT DESCRIPTION

·         EXAMPLE OF GOODS WHICH ARE NOT MERCHANTABLE”

1.     A PEN DOES NOT WRITE

2.     AC WHICH DOES NOT COOL

3.     A WATCH WHICH DOES NOT GIVE TIME

• CONDITIONS AS TO MERCHANT ABILITY
• GOODS MAY BE NON MERCHANTABLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. THEY INFRINGE TRADE MARK
2. USE IS DANGEROUS
3. UNFIT FOR USE

• MORELLI V FITCH AND GIBBONS:
  A ASKED FOR A BOTTLE OF STONES GINGER WINE AT D’S RESTAURANT. WHILE OPENING THE CORK WITH CORK SCREW,BOTTLE BROKE ITS NECK,AND INJURED. BOTTLE WAS NOT OF MERCHANTABLE QUALITY

• SALE BY SAMPLE

1. BULK SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE SAMPLE IN QUALITY
2. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THE GOODS
3. FREE FROM DEFECT

• LORYMER V SMITH
• IN A CASE THERE WAS A SALE BY SAMPLE OF TWO PARCELS OF WHEAT,THE BUYER WENT TO SELLER STORE TO EXAMINE ,HE WAS SHOWN ONLY ONE PARCEL NOT THE OTHER. HE COULD RESCIND THE CONTRACT
• CONDITIONS IMPLIED BY USAGE