Priyansh ordered 600 tins of apple juice from an American Company Amjuice Ltd. The company informed that tins would be packed in the boxes each containing 50 tins. On delivery, it was found that a substantial part was in boxes containing only 30 tins. Priyansh rejected the whole order as the tins were not packed according to the description given in the contract as the packing of tins was an essential part of the contract. Amjuice Ltd. sued Priyansh for the recovery of price. State with reason whether Priyansh can avoid the contract under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?

By virtue of provisions of Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, where there is a contract of sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description. The buyer is not bound to accept and pay for the goods which are not in accordance with the description of goods. Thus, it has to be determined whether the buyer has undertaken to purchase the goods by their description, i.e., whether the description was essential for identifying the goods where the buyer had agreed to purchase. If that is required and the goods tendered do not correspond with the description, it would be breach of condition entitling the buyer to reject the goods. In the given case, Priyansh ordered 600 tins of apple juice from an American Company Amjuice Ltd. that would be packed in the boxes each containing 50 tins. Amjuice Ltd. delivered substantial part in boxes containing only 30 tins. Priyansh rejected the whole order while Amjuice Ltd. sued Priyansh for the recovery of price. On the basis of above, the sale of apple juice tins was based on sale by description, but actual delivery was not as per the description given by seller at the time of contract. Hence, Priyansh is correct in rejection of the goods.