Answer 1

The property in the carpet HAD NOT passed to the buyer because, As Per Section 22 of Sale of Goods
Act 1930: -

The specific goods should be in deliverable state but the seller has to do something like test,
or perform any act on good and it will not pass to the seller until he does the act and inform the
seller.

Conclusion of the case

1. Show front (contractor) enter into a contract with Phillips (sub-contractor) for providing and
laying carpet in showroom.

2. Contractor allows the sub-contractor to complete the carpet in his premises but on the next
day the carpet was stolen from the Contractor premises.

In the case, contractor is not liable for the stolen carpet, because the carpet has not passed to him
and according to the term of contract the carpet would be in a deliverable state after

Answer 2
Facts of the case
1. The buyer king bought a vehicle on auction by giving a fraud identity and making a payment
by cheque.
2. The vehicle was delivered to the buyer in exchange of the cheque.
3. The cheque gets dishonoured and at the time buyer further sell the vehicle to the third
party.

Conclusion of the case: -

1. In the given case, it was a auctioneer mistake that he had not made a inquiry about king’s
identity at the time of contract.
2. So when the cheque get dishonoured and the buyer further sell the vehicle to Sinner, the
auctioneer cannot restored the Car even the king was convicted

Because, by delivering the vehicle the seller had lost the right but can recover the money but
not ownership of the vehicle

Answer 3
Fact of the case
1. Miss Hopkins car was stolen but prior to this the thieves had sold the car to lacey then lacy
sold it to Thomas then Thomas sold the car to Auto choice (Bridgend) sold the car to mid
Mid - Glamorgan.

2. Mid -Glamorgan sold the car to jones but jones had no idea about all the prior transaction.

3. Miss Hopkins had insurance policy for car and received claim from National Employers
Mutual General Insurance Association Limited, who became the owner of the stolen car.

4. They track down the car and asked jones to hand over the car but jones refused to hand it
over.

Provision of the case

1. As per the provision of sales of goods Act 1930, No one can give a better title of the goods
then what he himself has.

2. It means that a seller can only transfer the ownership of goods to a buyer if he has a right to
sell them.

3. Therefore, it means that if a person acquires possession of property by theft and sell it to
another, the buyer will not have any tittle even if he has acted honestly and paid the price of
the property.

Decision of the case

As per the legal proceeding of the case National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association
Limited, had paid the insurance claim and become the owner of the car so jones had to hand it over
to company because jones is not a true of the car and not having an owner’s title.

Answer 4

No, Saini Cannot Demand Replacement of The Compressor, because In the Given Case: -

1. In the given case Saini purchased the compressor but it gets defective within a week so the
seller repaired it.

2. After that Saini lost confidence over the compressor and demand refund of his money to
seller.

3. As Saini cannot demand for refund because he sign a Customer Request Form in which the
seller is only liable for repair and replace parts of the compressor.
 4. As per, the customer request forms the compressor was warranted for 6 months from the
date of purchase and if there is any defect in the product within the period of warranty the
company will repair or replace its parts not the entire product.

Thus, Saini cannot demand replacement of the compressor.

Answer 5
1. Sale by a co-owner

Example: - A, B, C purchased a Sewing Machine together for their work and they mutually decided to
kept the machine in A’ house. One day his friend D come to his house and he sell the machine to
him. D buys the machine in good faith and has no knowledge that machine is purchased jointly. In
this case D get the good title of the sewing machine.

2. Sale by a Person in Possession of Goods under a Voidable contract

Example: - A purchased a car from B through fraud. But before realizing the fraud A sell the car to
another person till than B did not void the contract. The person buys the car without knowing the
fraud. In this case B cannot recover the car as he did not void the contract before sale.

3. Estoppel

Example: - P, Q, R were talking and R says he has a motorcycle but actually that belong to P,
however P remain silent. Lately R sell the motorcycle to Q. In this case Q get the title of the
motorcycle even R has no title over it. As P didn’t deny R authority to sell the Motorcycle.

4. Sale by an Unpaid Seller

Example: - Ram sell some goods to Ajay but he didn’t pay the amount so ram stoppage in transit and
sell the goods to Mohan. So, Mohan gets the goods title against the original buyer Ajay. So, in this
way transfer of title will occur.

5. Sale by a Mercantile Agent:

Example: - X is a Mercantile Agent who is appointed by Z who is the Manufacturer of the goods. As X
has the title and possession of the goods so he sells the goods to Y. The transfer of title is valid in
such a case as the buyer Y act in good faith and as no reason to believe that seller doesn’t have any
right to sell the goods.