Rishi is having a farmhouse in the outskirts of Ambala. The clay of his farmhouse is very heavy and strong. In order to cultivate some seasonal…

Provisions of Law: (i) Condition as to quality or fitness [Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930]: There is implied condition on the part of the seller that the goods supplied shall be reasonably fit for the purpose for which the buyer wants them, provided the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) The buyer should have made known to the seller the particular purpose for which goods are required. (b) The buyer should rely on the skill and judgement of the seller. (c) The goods must be of a description dealt in by the seller, whether he be a manufacturer or not. Similarly, where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of mercantile quality [Section 16(2)]. Analysis: In the instant case, Rishi informed the dealer about the heavy and strong clay of his farmhouse and relied upon the dealer's expertise for selecting the tractor and seed planter machines. Therefore, the implied condition as to fitness for purpose under Section 16(1) applies. As regards the tractor, it broke down within 16 days because it was unsuitable for the intended purpose. This amounts to breach of the implied condition regarding fitness for purpose. Breach of a condition gives the buyer the right to treat the contract as repudiated and reject the goods and claim refund of price. Conclusion: Hence, Rishi is entitled to reject and return the tractor and repudiate the contract relating to the tractor. Provisions of Law: (ii) In case of the six seed planter machines, only one machine was defective and unsuitable, whereas the remaining five machines were suitable and had already been used by Rishi. Further, the bill contained separately itemized pricing and serial numbers, indicating a severable contract. The seed planter that broke down on the same day (16th day) was also found unsuitable for the specific field/purpose. This is essentially breach of implied condition of fitness for purpose under Section 16(1). Therefore, Rishi can return this one machine and claim refund. Also, according to Section 37(3), where the seller delivers to the buyer the goods he contracted to sell mixed with goods of a different description not included in the contract, the buyer may accept the goods which are in accordance with the contract and reject or may reject the whole. The remaining 5 seed planters were used and found to be suitable for the field. Since they performed as expected, there is no breach of any condition or warranty for these 5 machines. Conclusion: Therefore, Rishi can reject and return only the defective seed planter machine (breach of fitness condition), but he cannot return all six seed planter machines since the remaining five machines were suitable and already accepted by use.