FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 4,986 times | Saved to 301 briefcases
Niblett v Confectioners' Material, [1921] 3 KB 387

Facts:

Buyer seeks to recover damages from the seller on the ground that the goods delivered were not in accordance with the K of sale. Parties entered K for sale of 3000 cases of milk. K made at an interview, but later written down. 2000 cases delivered – but 1000 other cases had a label on it that was trademark infringement. Buyer wanted to rescind K

Ratio:

Right to sell = seller has power to vest full and complete rights over the goods in the buyer. Right of quiet enjoyment can be interfered with if there is an injunction on the goods

Analysis:

Buyer had no right to sell the goods the way they were – therefore the seller did not obtain quiet right to possession.
Seller was prevented from selling good because of an injunction – so he did not have right to the goods even though he legally owned them
s.13(b): Quiet possession – if there is an injunction preventing seller from selling goods then obvious that it will disrupt the buyers quiet possession of the goods

Holding:

P established their action – were able to rescind K


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.