Q1) M, N & P decided to gift something special to their loved ones for Valentines day.

They go to Cupids and each one pick out identical diamond rings and agreed for the price of Rs. 65,000/Cupids offered to engrave a name on the ring free of cost. 1. M paid the full amount on the spot and requested to engrave a particular name on the ring. The Manager of Cupids agreed to deliver it the next day. 2. N requested the Manager to keep the ring safely, stating that he will collect it the next day. He does not want any name to be engraved. He also agreed to pay the full amount the next day, when he collect the ring. 3. P also selected a similar ring and paid an advance of Rs.5000/-. He agreed to collect the same on the next day, by paying the balance. Unfortunately, that night, entire stock of diamond ornaments was stolen from Cupids. Who has to bear the loss of diamond rings? 1. M paid the full amount on the spot and requested to engrave a particular name on the ring. The Manager of Cupids agreed to deliver it the next day. In this case the loss in to be borne by the seller and not M though he had paid the full amount on the spot but goods where purchased on the condition that the particular name has to be engraved on the goods which was a conditional purchase. According (s 21) - Where seller has to do something to put the goods in deliverable state, property does not pass until that is done and buyer has notice thereof. Rugg v Minett - (1809) 11 East 210: Here the seller had to engrave the name to make the goods deliverable hence the goods are termed in the ownership of the seller and not buyer, 2.) N requested the Manager to keep the ring safely, stating that he will collect it the next day. He does not want any name to be engraved. He also agreed to pay the full amount the next day, when he collect the ring. 3.) P also selected a similar ring and paid an advance of Rs.5000/-. He agreed to collect the same on the next day, by paying the balance. In this the loss has to borne by Mr P not by seller. According to S. 20 - Unconditional contract for Specific goods in a deliverable state, the property passes when the contract is made. Tarling v Baxter (1827) 30 RR 355: So in this case contract was made when P selected the good and paid an advance of Rs 5000/- which state was contract was made between and buyer and seller and title of the good was passed to buyer of the goods though possession of the goods was retained by the seller of the goods.