1. According to Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a Condition is

(a)    A stipulation collateral to the main propose of the contract

(b)    A stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract

(c)    A stipulation, the breach of which does not repudiate the contract 

(d)    None of these.

Condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract. Stipulation is not collateral element of contract. Hence, option (a) is not correct. Breach of condition repudiates the contract. So, option (c) is not correct.

Hence, option (b) is correct.

2. In the contract of Sale of Goods, implied condition is

(a)    Essential to the main purpose of the contract

(b)    Collateral to the main purpose of the contract

(c)    Not necessary related to the main purpose of the contract

(d)    Either (a) or (b).

An implied condition, though not expressly agreed to by the parties, is presumed by law to be present in every contract of sale. So, it is essential to the main purpose of the contract. So, option (b) and (c) are not correct. As option (b) is not correct, so option (d) is not correct.

Hence, option (a) is correct.

3. Which of the following is not an implied condition in a contract of sale?

(a)    Condition as to title

(b)    Condition as to description

(c)    Condition as to free from encumbrance

(d)    Condition as to merchantability.

Condition as to title, condition as to description and condition as to merchantability are considered as implied condition in a contract of sale. But, condition as to free from encumbrance is not an implied condition in a contract of sale. So, option (a), (b) and (d) are not correct.

Hence, option (c) is correct.

4. Implied conditions include

(a)    Condition as to Title

(b)    Condition as to Description

(c)    Condition as to Merchantability

(d)    All of these.

The law presumes that every contract is made subject to Implied conditions, such as Condition as to Title, Condition as to Description and condition as to Merchantability. Hence all the options (a), (b), (c) are Implied Conditions.

Hence, option (d) is correct.

5. X agrees to supply to Y a certain quantity of timber of half-inch thickness for office cabinet construction. The timber actually supplied varies in thickness from one-third inch to five-eight inch. Y rejects the timber.  The supplier argues that  timber is merchantable and commercially fit for cabinet making. Is action of Y  justified?

(a)    Yes, Y is entitled to reject the goods

(b)    No, Y is not entitled to reject the goods

(c)    Y can only claim the damages as the timber varies with the description

(d)    None of the above.

Where there is a contract for sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description. In this case, though the goods are merchantable and commercially fit for Cabinet making, they do not correspond with the description. So, Y is entitled to reject the goods.

Hence, option (a) is correct.

6. In case of sale of goods by sample as well as by description, the implied conditions are that the bulk of the goods.

(a)    Shall correspond with the sample only

(b)    Correspond with the sample as well as description

(c)    Shall correspond with the description only

(d)    Shall correspond either with the sample or with the description.

When the goods are sold as per sample as well as per description, the goods shall correspond not only with the sample, but also with the description. So, option (a), (c) and (d) are not correct.

Hence, option (b) is correct.

7. M purchased a hot water bottle from a chemist. The bottle burst and injured his wife. The chemist is liable on account of

(a)    Breach of express condition as to quality

(b)    Breach of implied condition as to quality

(c)    Personal injury caused to the Buyer’s wife

(d)    Breach of implied condition as to merchantability.

Where the seller knows the particular purpose for which buyer is buying the goods, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for that purpose. In this case, M purchased a hot water bottle, but the bottle sold was not of proper quality for that purpose. Held, the chemist was liable for breach of implied condition of quality. Hence, option (b) is the correct answer. There was no express condition of quality or condition of merchantability. Option (c) is not relevant to the spirit of the question.

So, option (a) is correct.

8. A lady who knew that her skin was abnormally sensitive, bought a tweed coat and developed skin trouble by using it. She did not disclose to the seller that her skin was a abnormally sensitive. Is the seller liable for breach of implied condition as to fitness or quality?

(a)    The seller is not liable

(b)    The seller is liable

(c)    The seller has to pay for medical expenses

(d)    The seller has to refund the price of the coat.

If the buyer purchasing an article for a particular use is suffering from an abnormality and it is not made known to the seller at the time of sale, implied condition of fitness does not apply. Held, the seller was not liable, as the cloth being fit for anyone with a normal skin. So, option (b), (c) & (d) are incorrect.

Hence, option (a) is correct.

9. K, contracts to buy from P 1000 bags of cement. P sends 1,000 bags through truck. When cement arrives it becomes stone by rainwater. Can K reject the goods? /2

(a)    Yes,  breach of condition as to wholesomeness

(b)    Yes,  breach of condition as to merchantability

(c)    Yes, breach of condition as to description

(d)    No, K has to Accept the goods.

Condition as to merchantability means that the goods shall serve the purpose which is expected of them as per the name given to them. In this case, K can reject the goods as condition as to merchantability, as the cement becomes stone, which cannot be used for the purpose they were bought. Option (a), (c) and (d) are not correct in this case.

Hence, option (b) is correct.

10. X purchased from a retailer two shirts manufactured by R &Co. After wearing one of them, rashes developed on his skin. The rashes were caused by a chemical irritant which the manufacturer had failed to remove in the process of manufacture. X sued the manufacturer for damages. Will he succeed?

(a)    Yes, due to conditions as to merchantability

(b)    Yes, due to conditions as to quality

(c)    No, the seller has no liability after sale has made

(d)    Yes, due to condition as to description.

In this case, X got skin diseases after wearing of a shirt caused by a chemical irritant not removed by the manufacturer. The defect is not apparent on reasonable examination of the goods. So, X can sue the manufacturer for damages due to condition as to merchantability. Condition (b) & (d) is not relevant in this case. Option (d) is not correct.

Hence, option (a) is correct.

11. Breach of warranty gives a right to the buyer to

(a)    Reject goods

(b)    Treat the contract as repudiated

(c)    Claim damages

(d)    All of the above.

On breach of warranty, the buyer can claim for damages but has no right to reject the goods or treat the contract as repudiated. Hence option (a) and (b) are incorrect, and so the option (d) is incorrect.

Hence, option (c) is correct.

12. A sells his cat to B saying it is very lucky. B buys the cat but it does not prove lucky. Has B any cause of action against A?

(a)    Yes, for committing a fraud

(b)    Yes, trial period should be given

(c)    No, A has given mere expression of opinion

(d)    None of these.

Here, A has just given an opinion, without any warranty of any kind. It is upto B to evaluate the opinion. Hence, B has no action against A. So, option (a) & (b), and so the option (d) is not relevant here.

So, option (c) is correct.

13. M sold to B a tin of disinfectant powder. He knew that it would be dangerous to open the tin without special care but he did not warn B. B without knowledge of the danger opened the tin and injured himself. B filed a suit for damages for injury. Will he succeed? /3

(a)    Yes, conditions as to merchantability.

(b)    Yes, warranty as to disclosure of dangerous nature of goods

(c)    Yes, warranty as to quality or fitness by usage of trade

(d)    Yes, condition as to wholesomeness.

In case of sale of goods which to the knowledge of the seller, are dangerous or likely to be dangerous and the buyer is ignorant of the same, there is an implied warranty that the seller shall warn the buyer of the probable danger. If he does not warn and the buyer suffers any injury consequent upon the seller’s failure, the buyer becomes entitled to recover damages from the seller. In this case, M should warn B about the disinfectant powder. But he did not warn B and consequently, B became injured. So, B can file a suit for damages for injury.

Hence, option (b) is correct.

14. A lady buys synthetic pearls for a high price thinking that they are natural pearls. The seller does not rectify her mistake. Has she any remedies against the seller?

(a)    The lady has no remedy against the seller as the doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’ applies

(b)    She can avoid the contract as there is breach of condition as to quality for buyer’s purpose

(c)    The contract is voidable on the ground of fraud

(d)    The contract becomes void as there is breach of description.

According to the doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’, the seller is not duty bound to give to the buyer goods which are suitable for a particular purpose of the buyer. The buyer has to take reasonable care and diligence while purchasing the goods and if the selection turns out to be wrong or do not serve the intended purpose he cannot held the seller liable. So, when the lady was purchasing synthetic pearl thinking that they are real, it is not the duty of seller to rectify her mistake. She has to take utmost care and diligence in purchasing the pearls. So, she has no remedy against the seller.

Hence, option (a) is correct.