(i) The Institute of Science and Technology, Dehradun (the buyer), placed an order for various chemicals worth - 1,50,000 from a supplier in Delhi…

(a) (i) Delivery of the goods to the carrier [Section 23 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930]: Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract. In the instant case, the Institute of Science and Technology, Dehradun placed an order for various chemicals worth - 1,50,000 from a supplier in Delhi. The seller dispatched the consignment via a courier without reserving any right of disposal over the goods. The consignment was lost in transit. According to Section 23 (2) , it is an unconditional appropriation of goods because of which the Institute of Science and Technology, Dehradun (buyer) has become the owner of the goods. Therefore, it will bear the risk of loss of the consignment in the way. Hence, the buyer’s claim is not valid. (ii) Condition as to Merchantability [Section 16 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930]: Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. There are two requirements for this condition to apply: (a) Goods should be bought by description. (b) The seller should be a dealer in goods of that description. Provided that, if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed. The expression “merchantable quality”, though not defined, nevertheless connotes goods of such a quality and in such a condition a man of ordinary prudence would accept them as goods of that description. It does not imply any legal right or legal title to sell. In the instant case, the defect in the engine could not have been detected even with a reasonable inspection. Therefore, Sidharth can invoke the implied condition of merchantability and is entitled to repudiate the contract due to the defect in the car.