(i) In a contract of sale, Mr. A fraudulently sold certain unmarketable goods to Mr. B. Now Mr. A is liable for the fraudulent activity under both…

(i) Whether offence is punishable under both the Acts? According to section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be punished twice for the same offence. Thus, Mr. A who is liable for the fraudulent activity under both the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, will be prosecuted and punished under either or both the enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. (ii) Whether Purchases made could be said to be made in Good Faith? According to section 3 (22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a thing shall be deemed to be done in 'good faith' where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. The question of good faith under the General Clauses Act, 1897 is one of fact in Maung Aung Pu v. Maung Si Maung, it was pointed out that the expression 'good faith' is not defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the definition given here in the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not expressly apply the term on the Indian Contract Act. The definition of good faith as is generally understood in the civil law and which may be taken as a practical guide in understanding the expression in the Contract Act is that nothing is said to be done in good faith which is done without due care and attention as is expected with a man of ordinary prudence. An honest purchase made carelessly without making proper enquiries cannot be said to have been made in good faith so as to convey good title. Hence, in the given case, the purchase of car by Mr. P cannot be said to be made in good faith.