100%(2)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (2 Abstimmungen)
2K Ansichten3 Seiten
Niblett sued Confectioners for breach of warranty after receiving 1000 tins of condensed milk labeled "Nissley" from Confectioners. Nestle then contacted Niblett stating that the "Nissley" label infringed on their trademark and prevented Niblett from selling the milk. The court found that Confectioners breached the implied warranty that they had the right to sell the goods and that Niblett would have quiet possession and enjoyment of the goods. As the trademark issue prevented Niblett's possession, they were entitled to damages from Confectioners.
Niblett sued Confectioners for breach of warranty after receiving 1000 tins of condensed milk labeled "Nissley" from Confectioners. Nestle then contacted Niblett stating that the "Nissley" label infringed on their trademark and prevented Niblett from selling the milk. The court found that Confectioners breached the implied warranty that they had the right to sell the goods and that Niblett would have quiet possession and enjoyment of the goods. As the trademark issue prevented Niblett's possession, they were entitled to damages from Confectioners.
Niblett sued Confectioners for breach of warranty after receiving 1000 tins of condensed milk labeled "Nissley" from Confectioners. Nestle then contacted Niblett stating that the "Nissley" label infringed on their trademark and prevented Niblett from selling the milk. The court found that Confectioners breached the implied warranty that they had the right to sell the goods and that Niblett would have quiet possession and enjoyment of the goods. As the trademark issue prevented Niblett's possession, they were entitled to damages from Confectioners.
MBA (IBF) 1226215101 1. Case citation in full Niblett vs. confectioners Materials co. [1921] All ER Rep 459 Here, Niblett is the claimant and confectioner’s materials co. is the defendant 2. Introduction to the case Confectioners’ sold 3000 tins of condensed milk to Niblett’s on CIF contract. Although the documents did not show which brand of condensed milk was the subject of the sale, confectioners’ argued that under an oral contract, it would be one of three brands- “Freedom”, “Tucson”, “Nissley”. Confectioners’ delivered 2000 cases of “Freedom” and then 1000 tins of “Nissley”. In November, Niblett’s received a letter from Nestle, stating that “Nissley” imitated the Nestle trademark and asked Niblett not to sell it. It also threatened to take proceedings against Niblett. Niblett signed an undertaking not to sell, advertise or offer for sale the “Nissley” condensed milk. They then unsuccessfully asked confectioners’ to take it back and unsuccessfully applied for an export licence for it. Niblett claimed damages for breach of warranty:- That the milk was of merchantable quality; That confectioners’ had a right to sell it; That Niblett should have enjoyed quite possession; There was an implied condition or warranty that the label on the milk would not infringe any trademark. 3. Fact of the case Confectioner agreed to sell 3000 tins of condensed milk out of which 1000 tins were labeled ‘Nissley’. Niblett was not aware of the fact that the trademark of ‘Nissley’ was the imitation of ‘Nestle’. Nestle asked the Niblett not to sell, adverise or offe for sale ‘Nissley’. Niblett then filed a suit against confectioners’ for breach of warranty. 4. Principle of law Sec. 14(a) condition as to title: provides that in a contract of sale unless the circumstances of the contract are such as to show a different intention there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale, he has a right to sell the goods and that in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass. If the title turns out to be defective, the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and claim refund of the price plus damages even if buyer has used the goods. Sec. 14(b) warranty of quite possession: in a contact of sale, unless intention appears, there is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and shall enjoy quite possession of the goods. Thus, if the right of enjoyment or possession of the buyer is disturbed by the seller or any other person, he buyer is entitled to sue the seller for damages. 5. Judgment as per the court of law Bankers NJ, of the English Court of Appeal, found that there was a clear breach of section 12 of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893(s.17 SOGA) because confectioners’ had no right to sell the goods as they were, and Niblett had never enjoyed quite possession. 6. Analysis of the judgment Niblett was prevented from selling the goods because the trade mark of ‘Nissley’ was the imitation of ‘Nestle’. Therefore the Niblett did not obtain quite right to possession (sec.14 (b)). So Niblett is entitled to reject the goods and claim for the damages and price (if paid) (sec.14 (a)). 7. Related case reference Rowland vs. Divall [1923] 2K.B. 500 A purchased a car from B who had no title to it. A used the car for several months. After that, the true owner spotted the car and demanded it from A. Held: that A was bound to hand over the car to its true owner and that A could successfully sue B, the seller without title, for the recovery of the purchase price even though several months had passed. 8. Conclusion From the case of Niblett vs. confectioner material co. and its related case i.e. Rowland vs. Divall we knew that the seller has the right to sell the goods and if the title turns to be defective the buyer has the right to reject the goods and claim for the damages if any and the paid amount. There is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have the right to enjoy quite possession which if been disturbed then the buyer can sue the seller for the damages for the same. In Niblett case the trademark of ‘Nissley’ was the imitation of ‘Nestle’ due to which the right of Niblett to enjoy quite possession and so he has the right to sue the seller i.e. confectioners’ which he had done and the judgment was that it is a clear breach of warranty. 9. Reference Slide 7 and 8 of the below link ppt https://www.google.co.in/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjACahUK Ewj_hOml6PvIAhWJj5QKHf5JCXg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsydney.edu.au%2Flec %2Fsubjects%2Fcommercial%2Ftopic_notes%2FWinter%25202011%2FModule %25206%2520B2B%2520Winter %25202011.ppt&usg=AFQjCNFHxmQIEGw_YScGo_dcCUCLL0bAsw 16th edition of Business Law including Company Law by S.S. Gulshan and G.K. Kapoor Sale of goods act, 1930 page no. 161 and 165
The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts: How to Comply with the Key Rules and Regulations . . . and Avoid Terminated Agreements, Fines, or Worse
A Simple Guide for Drafting of Conveyances in India : Forms of Conveyances and Instruments executed in the Indian sub-continent along with Notes and Tips