Rajnikant agrees to sell some specific goods coming on a ship name “Titanic” to Chiranjivi which will be delivered on arrival of “Titanic”. The ship arrived at the port but goods were not found on the ship. Chiranjivi had to procure the goods from open market at higher price. Afterwards, Chiranjivi sued Rajnikant for recovery of extra payment he made for goods. State with reasons, whether Rajnikant is liable to compensate Chiranjivi under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?

Section 6(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides the acquisition of goods which depends upon uncertain contingency are called ‘Contingent Goods’. \nContingent goods also operate as ‘an agreement to sell’ and not a ‘sale’ so far as the question of passing of property to the buyer is concerned. In other words, like the future goods, in the case of contingent goods also, the property does not pass to the buyer at the time of making the contract. \nIn the instant case, there was an agreement between Rajnikant and Chiranjivi to sell some specific goods coming on a ship name “Titanic” by Rajnikant to Chiranjivi which will be delivered on arrival of “Titanic”. On the arrival of ship, it was found that the goods were not on it. Chiranjivi procured the goods from open market at higher price, and he sued Rajnikant for recovery of extra payment he made for goods. \nOn the basis of above provisions and facts, it is clear that goods under the agreement were contingent goods and the agreement between Rajnikant and Chiranjivi was ‘an agreement to sell’ and not a ‘sale’. The property in goods will be passed only after arrival of goods. As there was no ‘Sale’ between them, Chiranjivi cannot recover extra payment he made for goods.