Sale of goods and agency Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Sale of goods and agency - Essay ExampleIn the given case, Kangaroo Developments entered into a contract of exchange with Libbys wines on 20th January. The delivery of two hundred bottles of Queensland Plonk was to be on 1st February by Libbys wines on the premises of Kangaroo Developments. Libbys wine had 700 bottles in their stock from which 200 bottles had to be detached to be delivered to Kangaroo Developments. The 200 bottles, while not separated, were general goods. In order to become ascertained goods, they had to be separated. The agreement was made on 20th January however the transfer of property had not yet been made. tally to Sale of Goods Act, 1979, S.18 (Rule 2), Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods and the cheat oner is bound to do something to the goods for the dissolve of vexting them into a deliverable state, the property does not pass until the thing is done and the buyer has identity card that it has been done. According to the given fa cts, Libbys wines had separated 200 bottles on 20th January and marked them to be delivered to Kangaroo Developments. on that point is no information in the given facts whether Kangaroo Developments had the familiarity that 200 bottles had been separated hence ascertained. The manager put the bottles back after two hours of their separation. By the 1st of February, Libbys wine had been liquidated. Assuming that Kangaroo Developments had no experience of the separation of 200 bottles, it would mean that the goods were never ascertained. Therefore, no transfer of property had taken place and the take a chance in them remained with Libbys wines. In this case, since Kangaroo Developments had already paid the price of bottles to Libbys wines, they would be entitled to call up the price. They would not be entitled to recovery of 200 bottles since the title was never shifted. On the other hand, if Kangaroo Developments had the knowledge that the goods were separated to be delivered to them, the goods would need been said to amaze ascertained and the transfer of property would have deemed to be made. In this case, Kangaroo Developments would have been able to recover the bottles if the courts were convinced that despite the liquidation of Libbys wines, the delivery of 200 bottles was possible. It is because the title of the bottles and the risk in them had been transferred when they were separated. If the liquidation of Libbys wines had made the delivery impossible, then Kangaroo Developments would only have been able to recover the price. In Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate, the plaintiffs made an agreement to sell a horizontal tandem condensing locomotive engine to the defendants. The engine had to be dismantled. After it was dismantled but before it could be delivered, the bed plate of the engine was broken accidently. The defendants refused to accept the engine. The plaintiffs sued. It was held that the defendants were entitled to re ject the engine because the engine was not ascertained as the defendants did not have the knowledge about that fact. Therefore, the title was not transferred. Therefore, by the application of S.18 of Sale of Goods Act, 1979 and Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate, Kangaroo Development would only be able to recover the price if they did not have the knowledge of 200 bottles being separated. The property in goods and the risk in them would remain with Libbys wines. Against William and Sons According to the given facts, Kangaroo Developments contracted to purchase 500 brand coffee mugs from William and Sons. Each mug was required to be printed with Kangaroo Developments logo. In this case, the subject upshot is future goods. According to S.18 of Sale of Goods Act, 1979, the property in goods would transfer to Kangaroo Developments when the printing of logos is done and they have the notice of it. Here, again, the transfer of property hinges on the affirmation of th e fact whether Kangaroo