Introduction

Beale V. Taylor is one of the most famous case in the context of

Sale of goods act (1967) which lays down the significance of
Section 15 of the act.

Sale of Goods act,1930 defines a contract of sales of goods as a

contract whereby, the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the
property in goods to the buyer for a price.

Prior to the enactment of this act, the provisions relating to

contract of sale were contained in the Indian Contract Act 1972.
Essentials of Contract of sale

It is a contract.
Between two parties.
To transfer or agree to transfer.
The property in goods.
For a price, that is, money consideration.
Includes both a sale and an agreement to sell.
 Section 15

Section 15 lays its emphasis on sale by description.

Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by

description, there is an implied condition that the goods
shall correspond with the description; and, if the sale is by
sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the
bulk of the goods correspond with the sample if the goods
do not also correspond with the description.

Even if the buyer has seen the goods but he/she

purchases them relying on the description given by
the seller and what he/she has seen it may be
Beale Vs. Taylor- Facts.

Mr. Taylor, owner of a car advertised it for sale as a

'Herald convertible, white, 1961, twin carbs'.

Mr. Beale answered the advertisement, went to Taylors

home and saw the car. He was also driven in it by Taylor.

Satisfied by the inspection, Beale bought the car.

There was a hidden trouble in the situation.

 The rear half of the car was part of a 1961 Herald convertible
car, but the front half was part of an earlier model.

The two halves of the car was welded together.

The rear of the car bore the mark '1200', which was first
applied to the 1961 model.

None could identify that the car had any deviation from what
it was purported to be.
Both
Seale and Taylor were unaware of the fact that
it was welded.

Mr.
Beale later discovered that the car was being
welded.

He
kept the car and brought an action against Taylor
for damages for breach of condition implied by s.15
of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, on a contract for the
sale of goods by description.
 The Issue

Whether there was a breach of implied condition as to

description?

Whether the buyer was entitled to reject the car?

 Arguments

Plaintif
Beale is entitled to damages for breach of the condition as
implied by sec. 15 (1) Car should correspond with its
description) (2) as money was paid on a consideration which
had wholly failed (3) for breach of an implied condition of
roadworthiness.

Defendant
It was not a sale by description but sale of a particular car as
seen, tried and approved. The buyer had ample opportunity to
inspect and test the car.
 Initial rejection and appeal

Because of the strong argument from Mr. Taylor, initially the

court rejected the claim of Beale.

Beale immediately went for an appeal.

The court then judged The buyer was entitled to

damages because, although the description of the
car was not false to the knowledge of either the
seller or the buyer, yet fundamentally the seller was
selling a car of the description advertised.
 Reasoning

The buyer had relied at least to some extent on the

description of the goods which becomes a condition.
Therefore dissimilarity with the description of the
delivered goods caused the breach of such condition.

Dictum of Lord Wright in Grant v Australian Knitting

Mills Ltd (1935) applied and taken as reference for the
judgement.
 References

Legal Aspects of Business by Ravinder Kumar

http://ahsanlaw.blogspot.in/2012/01/case-laws-on-sales-of-goods-
act-1930.html
https://www.academia.edu/25644336/Beale_v_Taylor_1967?auto
=download
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/law-h
as-imposed-more-responsibility-on-the-seller-to-protect-buyers-
commercial-law-essay.php
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p11i5j/Beale-v-Taylor-1967-1-
WLR-1193-Court-of-Appeal-Seller-advertised-a-car-for-sale/