Cogitans Cardinal Of Property In Sales Law -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Cogitans Cardinal Of Property In Sales Law? Answer: Introduction: The Sales and Goods act 1979 is a subsequent version of Sales and Goods Act 1893[1]. This Act governs the provision of the English Contract Act and UK Commercial Law relating to the transaction of goods. The relationship between the buyer and the seller is the main concentrating provision of this Act. According to this section, the rights and interest of the sellers are not the only matter of fact; other relevant provisions like delivery, rights of the third party, liabilities and different competitions are also come under the purview of this Act. Section 12 of the Act discusses about the process how the Act maintains the relationship between the parties in case of private sales[2]. This essay will describe the fact whether the Act regulates relation between the parties in an international sale or not. Discussion: The international Sale of Goods is governed by the United Nations Conventions. accounting to this convention, it has been observed that the liabilities of the seller and the rights of the buyer in case of international transactions of goods are following the principle of Sale of Goods Act 1979. However, it is important to find out the differences in between the International Sale of Goods Act and Sale of Goods Act 1979 to understand the effective role of Sale of Goods Act regarding the relationship in between the parties in international sale governed by English Law. Article 32 of the Contracts for International Sale of Goods Act (CISG) has prescribed the liabilities of the seller regarding the delivery of the goods so that the seller could maintain all the logistic provisions of carriage[3]. As per the provision of this Act, it is the liability of the seller to deliver the identified goods and he needs to serve proper notice to the buyer regarding the specific consignment. According to Article 32 (2) of the CISG, law imposed certain duties to the seller regarding the goods carriage and the seller needs to ensure that goods are properly delivered to the buyer. Besides, it is the duty of the seller to provide all the security related information to the buyer. According to Butler, the notice provision of Sale of Goods Act is stricter compared to the CISG[4]. It is argued by Bridge that the provisions regarding the delivery of goods CISG re quite different from the Sale of Good Act 1979[5]. According to Article 31 of the CISG, delivery of goods can be made when the same has been handed over by the seller to the carrier. In case where there is no necessity of carriage, then the seller must make the goods available for the buyer. The delivery related relationship between the parties is governed by the section 29 of Sale of Goods Act 1979[6]. Certain stipulations have been prescribed by the Act such as the goods should be delivered within a reasonable hour. Further, if the contract is issueless, the residence of seller can be the delivery place. The rights and interest of the buyer can be much protected by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In case of any disputed goods, it is the duty of the seller to replace the disputed product. In Hadley v Baxendale[7] it has been observed that if any of the parties will marketing any breach to the terms of the contract will be faced necessary punishment. The relationship between the parties is strictly maintained by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The nature of the Act is reactive in nature and therefore, the buyer can claim damage from the seller in case of any disputes related to that goods. On the other hand, the buyer may extend the delivery time in case of unsatisfied delivery by the seller. In case of international sale, it has been observed CISG is more liberal to the Sale of Goods Act. It has been observed that the applicable provisions under Sale and Goods Act for the international relation ship are quite technical and legislature centric. There is no ethical consideration for the delivery of goods[8]. Christopher has argued that excessive legal provisions have made the transaction stricter and no ethical submission has been made. According to his statement, the terms of the contract can be positive if both the parties can maintain certain ethical consideration. According to Article 50 of CISG, if proper confirmation could not be made by the seller, buyer can ask for price reduction. In case of Sale of Goods Act, the buyer has the option to repudiate the whole contract and there is no option for ethical consideration under the Act. Further, under the Act, the buyer has no power to decide the amount of breach of condition or breach of warranty. In Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprise v Hull Fine Art[9], it has been observed that the rights of the buyer are strictly limited due to the technicality of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The CISG is protecting the parties to termina te the contract as a whole and gives many facilities to the parties to strengthen the base of the relationship. CISG has given the buyer a right to accept a portion of the goods under Article 51, while no such right has been provided to the buyer under Sale of Goods Act and the buyer is restricted to accept the partial goods under section 31 (1) of the Act. Further, the Act has failed to provide necessary rules to the seller if he delivered the goods before the specific dates and no duty has been imposed on him to provide document to the buyer. However, Article 34 of CISG has stated about the duty of the seller to hand over all the related documents to the buyer. It has been provided under Article 52 of CISG, it is discretionary power of the buyer to accept the goods if the seller has delivered the same before contracting date. Certain protections have been given to the parties after the delivery of the goods under CISG. The buyer can ask for remedy from the seller if the quality or quantity of the goods is not according to the criteria. On the other hand, no such power or authority has been given to the parties under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as the law of estoppels has restricted the parties to do so[10]. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the objective of both Contracts for International Sale of Goods Act or CISG and Sale of Goods Act 1979 were same that is to protect the rights and interest of the contracting parties and maintain the relationship between the buyer and seller in case of international contract. However, it has been observed that the provisions of the CISG are quite wide and less technical compared to the Sale of Goods Act. The provisions of CISG are required to entrench in this case. All these loopholes of the Act are required to be resolved and should make the Act as promising in order to maintain a good relationship. Reference: Bridge, Michael. "The UK Supreme Court decision in The Res Cogitans and the cardinal role of property in sales law." management. J. Legal Stud.(2017): 345. Butler, Petra.Choice of Law. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH Co. KG, 2016. Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Exch. 341 Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprise v Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564 Hill, Christopher, and Yash Kulkarni. business-law. Taylor Francis, 2017. Hunter, Howard. "The Law of Sales in Singapore." (2017): 1. Legislation.gov.uk. N.p., 2018. Web. 5 Feb. 2018. Riefa, Christine. "Codification: The future of English consumer law?."Browser Download This Paper(2015). Zareshahi, Ali. "A Comparative Study of Damages and Price Reduction Remedy for Breach of Sale Contract under CISG, English and Iranian Laws."J. Pol. L.9 (2016): 126.