- As to title to goods: There is an implied condition that the seller has a right to sell in case of sale and that in the case of agreement to sell, he will have the right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass.
Rowland Vs Divall: A purchased a car from B for a certain price and used it for some period. Subsequently, it was found that the car was stolen by B and therefore, A had returned back the car to the true owner. It was held that A could recover the full price paid to B.
- Sale by description: The implied condition is that the goods delivered must correspond with the description
Example: Where a machine was described as almost new and used very little but when delivered, was found to be an old and repaired one, it was held that the buyer was entitled to reject the machine.
- Sale by sample: The implied condition as —
- That the goods delivered shall correspond with the sample
- That the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample and
- That the goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.
Drummond & Sons Vs Van Ingen & Co.: Where worsted coating was supplied corresponding with the sample but not suitable for stitching due to a latent defect, it was held that the buyer was entitled to reject the goods.
- Sale by sample as well as description: In the case of sale of goods by sample as well as description, the goods delivered must correspond with both sample as well as description.
- As to quality or fitness: The general rule is “Caveat Emptor”, i.e. let the buyer beware. So, the seller need not disclose the faults in the goods he sells nor need he guarantee that the goods are fit for the purposes of the buyer. So, the buyer takes them as they come. But in the following cases, there is an implied condition as to quality or fitness of goods for any particular purpose.
- Where the buyer makes known the purpose to the seller, who is ordinarily dealing with sale of goods of that description and the buyer relies on the judgement of the seller.
- Where the seller does not disclose the faults in his goods and such faults cannot be detected on reasonable examination.
- Where the seller makes a statement and the buyer relies upon it.
Baldry V’s Marshall: A purchased a motor car from B for using it as a tourist car. B, the seller knew the purpose. The car turned out to be unfit for the purpose. Held, A the buyer could repudiate the contract.
But there is not implied condition as to fitness or quality of goods when they are sold under the patent or trade name.
E.W. Evans V’s Stella Benjamin: Where a refrigerator was sold, it was held that the name of the article itself implies that it is fit for a particular purpose.
- As to Merchantability: In case of sale of good by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description and also that they shall be of merchantable quality.
Brant Vs Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.: The buyer was supplied wollen underpants by the manufacturers. The buyer wore them for sometime and contracted a skin disease. Held, that the buyer was entitled to damages.
Exception: If the buyer has examined the goods, there is not implied condition as to quality of goods as regards defects which such examination must have revealed.
- As to wholesomeness: In the case of sale of vision, there is an implied condition that they are fit for immediate use, A, purchased a bun from B and injured his teeth by biting a stone in the bun. B was held liable.