Ahsan Habib - Case Laws On Sales of Goods Act-1930

9/10/2016
AhsanHabib:CaselawsonSalesofGoodsAct1930
0
More NextBlog
CreateBlog SignIn
AhsanHabib
LectureroflawLL.B(Honours),LL.M(FirstClass),RU.NorthernUniversityBangladesh(NUB),
DHAKA
Followers
Friday,13January2012
CaselawsonSalesofGoodsAct1930
Followers(14)
Casebook
On
Follow
Lawofsaleofgoods
BlogArchive
2013(1)
2012(17)
September(1)
July(1)
May(2)
January(13)
CourseOutlineforLL.B
(Honours)2
CourseOutlineforLL.B
(Honours)
classlectureoninsolvency
BusinessLaw
THESALEOFGOODSACT,
1930(ACTNO.IIIOF
1930)...
THESALEOFGOODSACT,
1930
,
Section6178
Insolvencyact1997section
4460
NorthernUniversityBangladesh
DepartmentofLaw
http://ahsanlaw.blogspot.in/2012/01/caselawsonsalesofgoodsact1930.html
,
Section143
THENEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTSACT,1881
1/17
9/10/2016
FullAct
Index
SerialNo.
TitleoftheCase
01
Barrow,Lane&BallardLtdvPhillip
PageNo.
Phillips&CoLtd[1929]1K.B.574
02
Couchmanv.Hill[1947]K.B.554.
03
CehaveN.V.v.BremerHandelsgesellschaft
mbHtheHansaNord[1976]Q.B.44.
04
Rowlandv.Divall[1923]2K.B.500.
05
MicrobeadsA.C.v.VinhurstRoadMarkings
[1975]1W.L.R.218
06
Bealev.Taylor[1967]1W.L.R.1193.
07
AshingtonPiggeriesLtd.V.ChristopherHill
Ltd.[1972]A.C.441
08
Nicholv.Godts(1854)10Ex.191
09
ReMoore&Co.v.Landauer&Co.[1921]2
K.B.519
10
Brown(B.S.)&SonLtd.V.CraiksLtd.
[1970]1W.L.R.752
11
Frostv.AylesburyDairyCo.Ltd.[1905]1
K.B.608
12
Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd. V. B.D.H.

ChemicalsLtd.[1969]1W.L.R.927
13
McAlpine&SonsLtd.V.MinimaxLtd.
[1970]1LloydsRep.397
14
Griffithsv.PeterConwayLtd.[1939]1All
E.R.
15
Crowtherv.ShannonMotorCo.Ltd.[1975]
1W.L.R.30
16
Godleyv.Perry[1960]1W.L.R.9
17
PhilipHead&Sonsv.Showfronts[1970]1
LloydsRep.140.
18
Federspielv.CharlesTwigg[1957]1Lloyds
Rep.240
19
Pignatarov.Gilroy[1919]1K.B.459
20
Greenwoodv.Bennett[1973]1Q.B.195
THENEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTSACT,1881
(ACTNO.XXV...
TheNegotiableInstruments
Act,1881
CaselawsonSalesofGoods
Act1930
AboutMe
AhasanHabib
Viewmycompleteprofile
CaseNo.1
TitleoftheCase:
Barrow,Lane&BallardLtdvPhillipPhillips&CoLtd[1929]1K.B.574
SummaryoftheFact:
A sold to Y 700 bags marked E.C.P. and known as lot 7 of Chinese
groundnuts,lyinginaspecifiedwarehouse.Atthetimeofthesaletherewere,
unknowntoparties,only591bags,and109bagshavingbeenstolen.
2/17
9/10/2016
Issue:
1.Whether the nonexistence of the goods at the time of the contract will
renderthecontractvoid?
2.Whether the seller is entitled to the full amount of money which was
agreedbetweenthepartiesasthepriceofthegoodsintotal?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthecontractwasvoid.Thereforenodutyorliabilityonthepart
ofeitherpartyshallaccrueinthiscase.Thesellerisnotentitledtothepriceand
thegoodsacceptedbythebuyershallbereturned.
Reasoning:
If, in a contract for the sale of specific goods, the goods have, without the
sellers knowledge, perished at the time when the contract was made, the
contractisvoidaccordingtosection6oftheSaleofGoodsAct1979ofUnited
Kingdom.
CaseNo.2
TitleoftheCase:
Couchmanv.Hill[1947]K.B.554.
SummaryofFact:
Inthecatalogueatasalebyauctionaheiferwasdescribedasunserved.Both
the owner and the auctioneer confirmed this in answer to a question by the
bidder.Theprintedconditionsofsaleexcludedliabilityformisdescription.But
the plaintiff buyer was an insistent sort of fellow and he asked both the
auctioneerandthedefendantsellerspecificallyiftheycouldconfirmwhatwas
in the catalogue, namely, that the heifer was unserved. He received a positive
answer from each. He then bid for the heifer and was successful. Later it was
found that the heifer was pregnant and she died from carrying a calf at too
younganage.
Issue:
1.Whetherabreachofwarrantyhasoccurred?
2.Whetherthebuyerisentitledtodamagesforsuchbreach?
Decision:
It was held that breach of warranty has occurred and the seller was liable in
damagesforbreachofwarranty.
Reasoning:
3/17
9/10/2016
Thespecialwarrantyoverridestheprintedconditionsofsale.Thoughtherewas
an exemption clause in the catalogue but the decision of the buyer to buy the
heifer depended upon the positive assurance given by the seller and the
auctioneeraboutherbeingunserved.Therefore,itamountstoaspecialwarranty
which was subsequently breached. Therefore, notwithstanding the exemption
clause the seller is liable to pay damages. The exemption clause affects the
catalogue but not the oral assurance which is given by the seller and the
auctioneer.
CaseNo.3
Title of the case: Cehave N.V. v. Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH the
HansaNord[1976]Q.B.44.
Summaryofthefact:
A written contract to sell fruit pellets contained the express stipulation,
shipmenttobemadeingoodcondition.Infact,someofthepelletswerenotin
goodconditionwhenshipped.However,theywere,onarrival,stillfittobeused
forthepurposethebuyerhadintendedandalthoughtheywereworthlessthan
theyshouldhavebeen,theycouldstillhavebeenresoldatareducedprice.
Issue:
1.Whetherthereisabreachofcondition?
2.Whether the buyer is entitled to repudiate the contract and reject the
goods?
Decision:
Itwasheldthattherewasnobreachofconditionandthebuyerwasnotentitled
to repudiate the contract and to reject the goods. But the buyer is entitled to
damages.
Reasoning:
Thesellerswerenotinbreachoftheimpliedconditionsastofitnessforpurpose
and merchantable quality. The express stipulation in the contract was not a
conditionandthesellersbreachofithadnotbeenseriousenoughtogotothe
rootofthecontract.Thereforethebuyerswereentitledonlytodamages.
CaseNo.4
Titleofthecase:Rowlandv.Divall[1923]2K.B.500.
Summaryoffact:
RowlandboughtamotorcarfromDivallanduseditforfourmonths.Divallhad
no title to the car, and consequently Rowland had to surrender it to the true
4/17
9/10/2016
owner.RowlandsuedtorecoverthetotalpurchasepricehehadpaidtoDivall.
Issue:
1.Whetherthereisabreachofcondition?
2.Whetherthebuyerisentitledtorecoverthetotalpurchaseprice?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthereisabreachofimpliedconditionastotitlebythesellerand
therefore the buyer is entitled to recover the purchase price in full,
notwithstandingthatheusedthecarforfourmonths.
Reasoning:
There was a breach of condition. Consequently the buyer can repudiate the
contractandrejectthegoods.Butinthiscasethecarwasalreadytakenbythe
realownerhencenoquestionofrejectionofgoodsarises.Therefore,thebuyer
canrepudiatethecontractbytakingbackthefullpurchasemoneyasdamages
duetothebreachofcondition.Theconsiderationhadtotallyfailedonthepartof
the seller. The use of the car that he had had was no part of the consideration
thathehadcontractedfor,whichwasthepropertyinandlawfulpossessionof
thecar,whereaswhathegotwasanunlawfulwhichexposedhimtotheriskof
anactionatthesuitofthetrueowner.
CaseNo.5
Title of the Case: Microbeads A.C. v. Vinhurst Road Markings [1975] 1
W.L.R.218
Summaryoffact:
In a contract, made before May 1970 the seller sold the buyers some road
marking machines. Unknown to them, another company was in the process of
patenting their own road marking apparatus under the patents Act which gave
them rights to enforce the patent from November 1970. In 1972 this company
broughtapatentactionagainstthebuyers.Thebuyersthenclaimedagainstthe
sellersforbreachoftheimpliedconditionastotitleandbreachoftheimplied
warrantyastoquietpossession.
Issue:
1.Whethertherewasabreachofconditionastotitle?
2.Whethertherewasabreachofwarrantyastoquietpossession?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthesellerswerenotliableforbreachofimpliedcondition.But
the sellers were liable in damages for breach of implied warranty as to quiet
possession.
5/17
9/10/2016
Reasoning:
Therewasnobreachofconditionbecauseatthetimeofthesalethesellershad
had every right to sell. The goods were not yet brought under patent. The
contract was made before May 1970 and the Patent became enforceable in
November1970.Therefore,thecontractisnotaffectedunderthePatentAct.On
the other hand, there was a breach of warranty as to quiet possession because
thatwasanundertakingastothefuture.
CaseNo.6
Titleofthecase:Bealev.Taylor[1967]1W.L.R.1193.
Summaryofthefact:
A buyer responded to an advertisement describing a car for sale as a 1961
model.Heinspectedthecarbeforebuyingit.Afterbuyingithediscoveredthat
thecarconsistedofhalfa1961modelandhalfofanearliercar.
Issue:
1.Whethertherewasabreachofimpliedconditionastodescription?
2.Whetherthebuyerwasentitledtorejectthecar?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthesellerwasliableforbreachofconditionastodescriptionand
thebuyerisentitledtorejectthegoodsthereby.
Reasoning:
The buyer had relied at least to some extent on the description of the goods
whichbecomesacondition. Therefore dissimilarity with the descriptionofthe
deliveredgoodscausedthebreachofsuchcondition.
CaseNo.7
Title of the case: Ashington Piggeries Ltd. V. Christopher Hill Ltd. [1972]
A.C.441
6/17
9/10/2016
Summaryoffact:
Thesellerssuppliedherringmealconsistingofherringspluspreservativeunder
acontracttosellherringmealwhichwaswantedbythebuyersforuseasan
ingredientincompoundinganimalfeedtobesoldtoanotherpersonwhowanted
it to feed to mink. Unfortunately the herrings and preservative together had
sufferedachemicalreactionmakingthemealpoisonoustomink.
Issue:
1.Whetherthegoodscorrespondedwiththedescription?
2.Whetherthegoodswereofmerchantablequality?
Decision:
It was held that the meal supplied corresponded with the description herring
meal.Thefeedwasnotofmerchantablequality.
Reasoning:
Therehadbeennoadditionofgoodsoutsidethecontractdescription.Thefeed
hadaningredientwhichwastoxic.
CaseNo.8
Titleofthecase:Nicholv.Godts(1854)10Ex.191
SummaryoftheFact:
Nichol agreed to sell to Godts some oil described as foreign refined rape oil,
warrantedonlyequaltosample.Nicholdeliveredoilequaltothequalityofthe
samples,butwhichwasnotforeignrefinedrapeoil.
Issue:
1.Whetherabreachofconditionhasoccurred?
2.Whetherthebuyerisentitledtorefusethegoods?
Decision:
ItwasheldthatbreachofconditionoccurredandGodtscouldrefusetoaccept
thegoods.
Reasoning:
Wherethereisa sale of goods by sample as well as by description, the goods
must correspond with the description as well as sample. Here the goods
correspondedwiththesamplebutnotwiththedescription.
7/17
9/10/2016
CaseNo.9
Titleofthecase:ReMoore&Co.v.Landauer&Co.[1921]2K.B.519
SummaryofFact:
Moore sold to Landauer 3,100 cases of Australian canned fruits, the cases to
contain30tinseach.Mooredeliveredthetotalquantity,butabouthalfthecases
contained24tins,andtheremainder30tins.Landauerrejectedthegoods.There
was no difference in market value between goods packed 24 tins and goods
packed30tinstothecase.
Issue:
1.Whetherabreachofconditionhasoccurred?
2.whetherthebuyerisentitledtorejectthegoods/
Decision:
ItwasheldthatLandauercouldrejectthewholegoodsastherewasabreachof
condition.
Reasoning:
Asthegoodsdelivereddidnotcorrespondwiththedescriptionofthoseordered.
CaseNo.10
TitleoftheCase:Brown(B.S.)&SonLtd.V.CraiksLtd.[1970]1W.L.R.
752
8/17
9/10/2016
Summaryoffact:
The buyer of industrial fabric found that it was unsuitable for making into
dresses but that it was suitable for other industrial purposes as such it was
commerciallysaleable,thoughataslightlyreducedprice.
Issue:
1.Whetherthegoodswereofmerchantablequality?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthegoodswereofmerchantablequality.
Reasoning:
Thegoodscouldbeusedforsomeotherpurposesandithadcommercialvalue.
Thereforeitmeetsthedemandofmerchantablequality.Ifthegoodssuppliedare
uselessforanypurposeforwhichgoodsofthatdescriptionareusuallyusedthen
theyareprobablynotofmerchantablequality.Ontheotherhand,iftheyarestill
suitableforsomeofthepurposesforwhichgoodsofthatdescriptionareusually
usedandcouldberesoldforthesameorverynearlythesamepriceasifthey
weresuitableforeverypurpose,theywillremainofmerchantablequality.
CaseNo.11
TitleoftheCase:Frostv.AylesburyDairyCo.Ltd.[1905]1K.B.608
SummaryofFact:
Aylesbury, a milk dealer supplied Frost with milk which Frost and his family
consumed. Even though Aylesbury had taken all reasonable precautions to
prevent contamination of the milk, it contained typhoid germs which infected
Frostswifewhodiedasaresult.
Issue:
1.Whetheranybreachofconditionhasoccurred?
Decision:
ItwasheldthatAylesburywasliableforbreachofcondition.
Reasoning:
The purpose for which the milk was supplied was sufficiently made known to
Aylesbury by its description and the milk was clearly unfit for human
consumption.Therefore,abreachofconditionasfitnessofgoodshasoccurred
andthebuyerisentitledtodamagesforsuchbreach.
9/17
9/10/2016
CaseNo.12
Title of the case: Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd. V. B.D.H. Chemicals Ltd.
[1969]1W.L.R.927
SummaryofFact:
Vacwells, who made transistors, bought from B.D.H. some ampoules of boron
tribromide which were marked harmful vapour. Two of Vacwells chemists
washed the ampoules in a sink, to remove the labels. A violent explosion
occurred,killingoneofthechemists,injuringtheotherandcausingconsiderable
damage to the premises. The chemical boron tribromide reacted violently to
waterapparentlyoneofthechemistshaddroppedanampouleinthesink,the
ampoule had broken and the chemical had come into contact with water. The
dangerouspropensityofthechemicalwasunknowntoB.D.H.andthechemists
ofVacwells.
Issue:
1.Whetherthechemicalwasfitfortheuseforwhichitwasrequired.
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthechemicalwasnotfitfortheuseforwhichitwasrequiredor
forpurpose.Thereforeabreachofconditionastofitnessofgoodsoccurred.
Reasoning:
Theampoulesdidnotbearlabelsdrawingattentiontothedangerwhichwould
ensueifthechemicalwasbroughtintocontactwithwater.
CaseNo.13
TitleoftheCase:McAlpine&SonsLtd.V.MinimaxLtd.[1970]1Lloyds
Rep.397
10/17
9/10/2016
SummaryofFact:
McAlpinesboughtfourcarbondioxidefireextinguishersfromMinimax.Afire
broke out in a timber hut erected by McAlpines on a site. Two of the fire
extinguisherswereinthehut.Whenappliedtothefire,theyexploded,allegedly
greatlyaddingtothedamage.
Issue:
1.Whetherthegoodswerefitforthepurposeforwhichtheywererequired?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthefireextinguisherswerenotfitforthepurposeforwhichthey
wererequired.Thereforeabreachofconditionastofitnesswasbreached.
Reasoning:
Itisobviousthatthefireextinguisherswerenotfit.Becausethoseareboughtto
extinguishthefirebuttheycausedmoredamagebyexplosion.
CaseNo.14
Titleofthecase:Griffithsv.PeterConwayLtd.[1939]1AllE.R.
SummaryofFact:
Mrs.Griffithspurchasedatweedcoatwhichcausedhertosufferdermatitis.She
had an unusually sensitive skin and there was nothing in the coat that would
haveaffectedanyonewithnormalskin.
Issue:
1.Whetherthecoatisunfitforpurpose?
2.Whetherthesellerisliable?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthecoatisnotunfitandthesellerisnotliable.
Reasoning:
Theplaintiffsskinabnormalityhadnotbeenmadeknowntotheseller.
11/17
9/10/2016
CaseNo.15
Titleofthecase:Crowtherv.ShannonMotorCo.Ltd.[1975]1W.L.R.30
SummaryoftheFact:
In1972theplaintiffpaid390fora1964Jaguarcarwith82,000milesonthe
milometer.Hedroveit2,000mileswithinthreeweeksofpurchaseandthenthe
engineseizedup.Atthetimeofthesaletheenginemusthavebeennearingthe
pointoffailure.
Issue:
1.Whetherabreachofconditionoccurred?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthesellerwasinbreachoftheconditionthatthecarshouldbe
reasonablyfitforthepurposeofbeingdrivenontheroad.
Reasoning:
Thecarbecameuselessafterrunning2,000miles.Therefore,thisisnotaminor
defectandfrustratedthemainpurposeofthecontract.Theimpliedconditionas
tofitnesswasnotfulfilled.
CaseNo.16
Titleofthecase:Godleyv.Perry[1960]1W.L.R.9
SummaryofFact:
12/17
9/10/2016
Godley, a boy of six, bought a plastic catapult from Perry, a stationer. Godley
used the catapult properly but it broke in his hands as it was made in an
indifferent manner and part of it ruptured Godleys eye. Perry had bought a
quantityofthesecatapultsfromB,awholesaler,bysampleandPerryswife
hadtestedthesample,beforeplacingtheorder,bypullingbackitselastic.
Issue:
WhetherGodleycouldrecoverfromPerry
WhetherPerrycouldrecoverfromB
Decision:
ItwasheldthatGodleycouldrecoverfromPerryandPerrycouldrecoverfrom
B.
Reasoning:
Thecatapultwasnotfitforitspurposeanditwasnotofmerchantablequality.
Sincethedefectofthegoodscouldnotbediscoveredbyreasonableexamination
of the sample. Edmund Davies J. observed Not extreme ingenuity, but
reasonableness,isthestatutoryyardstick
CaseNo.17
Titleofthecase:PhilipHead&Sonsv.Showfronts[1970]1LloydsRep.
140.
Summaryoffacts:thedefendantsboughtacarpetfromtheplaintiffs.Whenthe
carpetwasdeliveredtotheshowroomswhereitwastobelaid,itwassentaway
forstiching.Itwasreturnedthenextdayinheavybalesandstolen.
Issues:
1.Whetherthegoodswereindeliverablestate?
2.Whetherthedefendantswereliablefortheprice?
Decision:
Itwasheldthatthecarpetinbaleswasnotinadeliverablestate.Thedefendants
werenotliablefortheprice.
Reasoning:
Asthegoodswerenotinadeliverablestate,thereforethepropertyremainedin
theplaintiffs.Hencethebuyercannotbeheldliablefortheprice.Itwouldbein
adeliverablestateifitwouldbelaid.
13/17
9/10/2016
CaseNo.18
Titleofthecase:Federspielv.CharlesTwigg[1957]1LloydsRep.240
Summaryoffacts:
Federspiel, a Costa Rican company, bought from Charles twigg, an English
company,85bicyclesunderacontractprovidingthatCharlesTwiggshouldship
theminJune1953.Federspielpaidthepurchasepriceinadvance.InJuly1953a
receiverwasappointedfortheEnglishcompanyandalltheassets,includingthe
bicycles,becamechargedtothereceiver.TheCostaRicancompanyallegedthat
asthebicycleshadbeendulypackedintocases,markedwiththeirname,were
registered for consignment, and shipping space was reserved for them in a
named ship, this setting aside of the goods constituted an unconditional
appropriationtowhichtheyhadassentedbyletterandthereforethepropertyhad
passedtothem.
Issues:
1.WhetherwasthereanappropriationwithintherelevantsectionoftheAct?
2.Whetherthebuyerwasentitledtorecoverthegoodsfromthereceiver?
Decision:
ItwasheldthattherewasnoappropriationwithintherelevantsectionoftheAct
and therefore the property had not passed to the buyer. The buyer company is
notentitledtorecoverthegoodsfromthereceiver.
Reasoning:
Theintentionofthepartieswasthatthepropertyshouldpassonshipmentwhich
could not have been done and therefore there was no appropriation and the
actionfailed.
CaseNo.19
Titleofthecase:Pignatarov.Gilroy[1919]1K.B.459.
14/17
9/10/2016
SummaryofFacts:
Gilroy sold to Pignataro 140 bags of rice, the particular bags being
unascertained.OnFebruary27Pignatarosentachequeforthepriceandasked
foradeliveryorder.Gilroysentadeliveryorderfor125bagsfromawharf,and
wrotesayingthattheremaining15bagswerereadyfordeliveryathisplaceof
business. Pignataro did not send for the 15 bags until March 25, when it was
foundtheyhadbeenstolenwithoutanynegligenceonGilroyspart.Pignataro
suedtorecoverfromGilroythepricehehadpaidforthe15bags.
Issues:
1.WhetherGilroyhasappropriatedthecontract?
2.WhetherPignataroassentedtosuchappropriation?
3.WhetherPignatarocouldrecoverthepriceclaimed?
Decision:
Pignatarocouldnotsucceedandcouldnotrecovertheprice.
Reasoning:
Gilroy had appropriated the 15 bags to the contract, and Pignataros assent to
the appropriation was to be inferred from his conduct in not objecting.
Therefore,thepropertyinthe15bagspassedtoPignataro.
CaseNo.20
Titleofthecase:Greenwoodv.Bennett[1973]1Q.B.195
Summaryofthefacts:
BennettownedajaguarcarwhichheentrustedtoMr.S.todosomerepairson
it.S.didnotdosobutinsteaduseditforhisownpurposesandhadacrashinit.
WithoutanyauthorityS.soldthecarinitsdamagedstatefor75toMr.H.,an
innocentpurchaser.H.spent226onrepairingthecar.
Issue:
1.WhetherBennettwasentitledtopossessionofthecar?
2.Whether the innocent purchaser was entitled to get the improvement
money?
Decision:
ItwasheldthatBennettwasentitledtopossessionofthecarbuthehadtopay
226toH.
15/17
9/10/2016
Reasoning:
Bennettisthetrueowner.Thesaleofanarticlebyapersonwhoisnot,orhas
not the authority of, the owner gives no title to the buyer. But an innocent
purchaser is entitled to be recompensed to the extent that he spent money
improvingthegoodsbeforehediscoveredtheywerenothis.
PostedbyAhasanHabibat22:19
Recommend this on Google
6comments:
YamnaBaig 29May2013at00:15
Thankyou.Itisofgreathelp.
Reply
MuhammadJawwadJoiya 30May2013at00:24
Thiscommenthasbeenremovedbytheauthor.
Reply
Replies
MuhammadJawwadJoiya 30May2013at00:32
Aha!HereisthebestmaterialtoclarifySaleofGoodsAct1930in
thelightof"JudicialWisdom".ThanksalotMr.AhasnHabib.
Reply
fatimariaz 31May2013at08:43
Thiscommenthasbeenremovedbytheauthor.
Reply
naniariff 27November2015at06:47
Thxyou...veryhelpful.
Reply
naniariff 27November2015at06:49
Thxyou...veryhelpful.
Reply
16/17
9/10/2016
Enteryourcomment...
Commentas:
Publish
Unknown(Google)
Signout
Notifyme
Preview
NewerPost
Home
Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)
Watermarktemplate.PoweredbyBlogger.
17/17

Ahsan Habib - Case Laws On Sales of Goods Act-1930

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahsan Habib - Case Laws On Sales of Goods Act-1930

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/10/2016

Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd. V. B.D.H.

You might also like