X offered to sell Y a machine for Rs 5,00,000. Y refused to buy it unless the machine is made into a running condition. X agreed to do the same but while the machine was being repaired, it was destroyed without the fault of any person. With reference to the relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 examine whether X can recover the price from Y?

According to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, in case of ‘specific goods’, the property shall pass on the formation of contract only if the goods are specific (Section 19).\nGoods are in a deliverable state i.e. the seller has done all that he is required to do, to put the goods in such a state that the buyer shall be bound to take the delivery of the same (Section 20).\nIf the seller is bound to do something in respect of the goods to put them in a deliverable state and he is not yet done the same, then the possession of goods shall pass on to the buyer in the future, when the seller does what is required to do and brings the same to the knowledge of the buyer. (Section 21).\nIn the given case, the seller X was required to conduct repairs in respect of the machine before he buys the same. Thus, the possession of property intends to take place when the repairs are conducted by X and Y has the knowledge of the same. Since the machine is destroyed before repairs could be completed, the possession of property has not taken place.\nThe risk of loss vests with X and therefore cannot recover the price from Y.\nALTERNATE ANSWER\nGoods perishing before sale but after agreement to sell (Section 8 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930): Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods, and subsequently the goods without any fault on the part of the seller or buyer perish or become so damaged that they no longer answer to their description in the agreement before the risk passes to the buyer, the agreement is thereby avoided or becomes void.\nIn the instant case, the machine was destroyed without the fault of any person while being repaired. X cannot recover the price from Y as the performance of contract became impossible due to supervening impossibility.