.png)
Acceptance of Delivery by Buyer
The mere fact that the buyer has taken the delivery of the goods does not amount to acceptance of them. According to section 42, the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods in either of the following circumstances, namely:
The mere fact that the buyer has taken the delivery of the goods does not amount to acceptance of them. According to section 42, the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods in either of the following circumstances, namely:
1. when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods
with out intimating the seller that he has rejected them. What is
reasonable time is a question of fact. If time for rejection is
stipulated, rejection must be within that period. It may be mentioned
that on rejection of goods because of defective delivery, mere informing
the seller is enough and the buyer is not bound to return the rejected
goods to the seller (sec.43).
2. when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted the goods. (Sec.41,) to examine and test the goods in order to be sure as to whether they are in conformity with the contract regarding quality etc. in the case of a horse sale conditioned to run at 25 kilometers per hour it is necessary to use the horse for ascertaining, whether the horse is in conformity with the contract. But if he is not satisfied, he must act promptly to inform the seller about rejection.
3. when he does any act in relation to the goods which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, e.g., consumers, uses, pledges or resells the goods or puts his mark on them.
Example
(a) Where the buyer having seen that samples drawn from bulk were inferior to the samples originally shown to him, offered the goods for sale by auction at reduced price and the auction having failed to produce a purchaser, the buyer purported to reject the goods, it was held that the buyer could not do so as he had in law ‘accepted’ the goods (parker vs plamer)
(b) Where the buyer took delivery of wheat and sold a part of it, and afterwards found that the wheat was not of contract quality and therefore sought to reject it, it was held that he had lost the right of rejection as he had accepted the wheat by a dealing inconsistent with the rights of the seller, in so far as he had sold out a portion of it ( Hardy & co. vs fowler).
