However, although Amy had guaranteed punctual delivery, the date was not stated in the contract. It can be treated as breach of warranty, stated in section 2 of SOGO, “in an agreement with reference to goods which are the subject of a contract of sale, but collateral to the main purpose of such contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages, but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated.” Thus, warranties are lesser terms which do not go to the root of the contract. The remedy for a breach is an action for damages. In this case, Belinda just mentioned that delivery would normally take place on 1st day of each month which was not a must and there were only three months delivered lately among eleven months. The 20 days of late delivery can be viewed as the collateral to the main purpose of such contract. If this is treated as a breach of warranty, Belinda cannot reject the coffee as it does not give to the repudiation of contract. Amy can claim the price of the coffee. Under section 52(1) and (2), seller can maintain action against the price if buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the good in case of the goods has passed to buyer or has not passed if the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery. In this case, if the goods rejected by Belinda were still kept by Star lucks, the property of coffee has passed and Amy can claim for full price of the coffee. If she rejected the coffee immediately and gave back the coffee to Amy, the property of coffee has not passed but Amy still claim the price as the price was paid monthly which was fixed.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document