P sold certain antique items to Q for 3,00,000/- on 13.12.2024. As per the terms of agreement75% of the amount was to be paid within a week and the…
CA Foundation · Business Laws · PYQS · May 2025
P sold certain antique items to Q for 3,00,000/- on 13.12.2024. As per the terms of agreement75% of the amount was to be paid within a week and the balance 25% was to be paid till 31.12.2024. Q appointed his agent R to take delivery of the goods after payment of first installment. Q transferred a sum of 2,80,000/- in the account of P through NEFT on 18.12.2024 which was credited in P's account on the same date. R failed to take delivery of antique items due to medical emergency. By the meantime, Q failed to make payment of the second installment till 31.12.2024. On 10.01.2025, Q's agent came to take the delivery of goods. But, P refused to deliver the goods and exercised his right of lien over the goods. According to provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, give your opinion whether P was justified in exercising right of lien as only - 20,000/- was left to be paid?
Suggested Answer and Working Notes:
(a) Rights of lien (Section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act,1930) An unpaid seller has a right of lien on the goods for the price while he is in possession, until the payment or tender of the price of such goods. It is the right to retain the possession of the goods and refusal to deliver them to the buyer until the price due in respect of them is paid or tendered. Exercise of right of lien: This right can be exercised by him in the following cases only: (a) where goods have been sold without any stipulation of credit; (i.e., on cash sale) (b) where goods have been sold on credit but the term of credit has expired; or (c) where the buyer becomes insolvent. In the instant case, P is still in possession of the goods and the full price was not paid by Q within the stipulated time i.e. till31st December, 2024. Therefore, P is an unpaid seller and can rightfully exercise lien under Section 47. Even though the unpaid amount is only - 20,000, P’s refusal to deliver the goods is valid. Thus, P is legally justified in exercising right of lien.
Topics: The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Related Questions in this Topic
- Neeraj entered in a contract with Rahul to purchase 1000 litres of mustard oil at the price which should be fixed by Aak...
- Mr. Mukesh was running a shop selling good quality washing machines. Mr. Vivaan came to his shop and asked for washing m...
- Ritvik sold 500 bags of wheat to Anoj. Each bag contains 50 Kilograms of wheat. Ritvik sent 450 bags by road transport a...
- J, a wholesaler of premium Basmati rice delivered on approval 100 bags of rice of 10 kg each to a local retailer, on sal...
- "Delivery of goods is an essential aspect of a contract of sale." Discuss the statement. Explain the various kinds of de...