Published on: December 10, 2023 at 01:17 IST
Court: High Court of Bombay
Citation: Nagardas Mathuradas v. N.V. Velmahomed (1930)
Honourable High Court of Bombay has held if a buyer orders goods of a certain description, and the seller delivers goods of a different description, it is open to the buyer to reject them. However, if he does not reject but keeps the goods, even if he does so in ignorance of the fact that they are of a description different from that provided for by the contract he is debarred from rejecting the goods.
9. I may here usefully refer to the English case of Wallis, Son & Wells v. Pratt & Haynes. That was a decision of the Court of appeal, there being a dissenting judgment of Fletcher, Moulton, L.J., which was subsequently approved of by the House of Lords on appeal: see (1911) A.C. 394.
The main point emerging from that dissenting judgment and from the opinions of their Lordships in the House of Lords to which it is useful to refer in the present case is this that if a buyer orders goods of a certain description, and the seller delivers goods of a different description, it is open to the buyer to reject them. But if he does not reject but keeps the goods, even if he does so in ignorance of the fact that they are of a description different from that provided for by the contract he is debarred from rejecting the goods thereafter, and can only fall back upon a claim for damages, as upon a breach of warranty.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra