For the purpose of making uniforms for the employees, VK bought dark blue coloured cloth from PK. But did not disclose to the PK the purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees, the cloth was found unfit. However, there was evidence that the cloth was fit for caps and boots. Advise VK whether he is entitled to have any remedy, as per the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

According to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, normally in a contract of sale, there is no implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied. The general rule is that of “Caveat Emptor” that is “let the buyer beware”. But where the buyer expressly or impliedly makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required and also relies on the seller’s skill and judgement and that this is the business of the seller to sell such goods in the ordinary course of his business, the buyer can make the seller responsible. In the given case, VK purchased the dark blue coloured cloth from PK without informing him i.e. uniforms would be prepared and used by employees. Therefore, VK cannot make PK responsible on the ground that cloth was found unfit. VK cannot treat it as a breach of implied condition as to fitness and quality and has no right to recover damages from PK. In view of the above, VK will not succeed in getting any remedy as per the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.