Saurabh purchased electric scooter of Vivek for ` 5000 only on the gun point. Vivek decided to file the complaint and to avoid the contract on the basis of coercion applied against him by Saurabh. But before he could do that, Saurabh sold the scooter to Vinay who had no idea about the situation on which the scooter was purchased by Saurabh. Vivek sued Saurabh and Vinay for recovery of scooter. Referring to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, whether Vivek was correct in his decision?

By virtue of provisions of Section 29 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer would acquire a good title to the goods sold to him by a seller who had obtained possession of the goods under a contract voidable on the ground of coercion, fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence provided that the contract had not been rescinded until the time of the sale. In the instant case, Saurabh purchased electric scooter of Vivek for ` 5000 only by applying coercion. Before Vivek avoid the contract, Saurabh sold the scooter to Vinay who was an innocent buyer. Now, Vivek sued Saurabh and Vinay for recovery of scooter. According to above provisions, even Saurabh purchased the electric scooter by applying coercion, Vinay got good title as he was an innocent buyer and purchased the scooter before setting aside the contract by Vivek. Hence, Vivek cannot recover the scooter from Vinay. However, Vivek may claim damages from Saurabh.