Ashok, a trader, delivered a camera to Mangesh on 'sale or return' basis. Mangesh delivers the camera to Rahul on the terms of 'sale for cash only or return'. Afterward, Rahul delivered it to Vishal on a 'sale or return' basis without paying cash to Mangesh. The camera, which was in the possession of Vishal was lost by theft though he exercised due care for its safety. Referring to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, analyse the situation and advise, whether Mangesh, Rahul or Vishal are, jointly or severally, liable to pay the price of the camera to Ashok.

As per the provisions of section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, when goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or “on sale or return" or other similar terms, the property therein passes to the buyer when he does something to the good which is equivalent to accepting the goods e.g. he pledges or sells the goods. Referring to the above provisions, we can analyse the situation given in the question. Since, Mangesh, who had taken delivery of the camera on Sale or Return basis and delivers the same to Rahul on sale for cash only or return, has attracted the third condition that he has done something to the good which is equivalent to accepting the goods e.g. he pledges or sells the goods. Therefore, the property therein (Camera) passes to Mangesh. Now, Rahul delivered it to Vishal on a sale or return without paying cash to Mangesh. Since Rahul did not pay cash and had not exercised the option to purchase, ownership of the camera did not pass to Rahul. Therefore, Rahul is not liable to pay the price of the camera either. Since Vishal did not accept the goods and the camera was lost by theft (despite his due care), Vishal is not liable for the price of the camera as ownership had not passed to him. Therefore, Mangesh is solely liable to pay the price of the camera to Ashok, as he accepted the camera on a "sale or return" basis and did not return it within a reasonable time.