Failure of buyer to take delivery
Section 44 states that, when the seller is ready and willing to deliver the goods and requests the buyer to take delivery, and the buyer does not, within a reasonable time after such request, take delivery of the goods, he is liable to the seller for any loss occasioned by his neglect or refusal to take delivery, and also for a reasonable charge for the care and custody of the goods: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of the seller where the neglect or refusal of the buyer to take delivery amounts to a repudiation of the contract.
Failure of buyer to accept goods
Section 56 states that, where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, the seller may sue him for damages for non-acceptance. Section 56 of the local Act has no provision corresponding to sections 50(2) and (3) of the English Sale of Goods Act 1979 which lay down the rules for the assessment of damages for non-acceptance. In their absence, the local court will most likely apply the common law principle derived from the leading case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 and embodied in section 74 begins by stating that a party who suffers as a result of a breach of a contract is entitled the compensation. The compensation to be claimed is that ‘which naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach of it’. The expression covers to a large extent both limbs of Hadley v. Baxendale supra. Subsection (2) of the same enacts the well established common law rule as to remoteness of damages. It states: Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Damages are too remote if the loss in question did not arise from the breach directly and naturally in the usual course of events (reflecting the language of subsection (1)) or was not reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. It may be added...