Question

Archika went to a jewellery shop and asked the shopkeeper to show the gold bangles with white polish. The shopkeeper informed that he has gold bangles with lots of designs but not in white polish rather if Archika select gold bangles in his shop, he will arrange white polish on those gold bangles without any extra cost. Archika select a set of designer bangles and pay for that. The shopkeeper requested Archika to come after two days for delivery of those bangles so that white polish can be done on those bangles. When Archika comes after two days to take delivery of bangles, she noticed that due to white polishing , the design of bangles has been disturbed. Now, she wants to avoid the [4] Page | 2/3 P.T.O. contract and asked the shopkeeper to give her money back but shopkeeper has denied for the same. (a) State with reasons whether Archika can recover the amount under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. (b) What would be your answer if shopkeeper says that he can repair those bangles but he will charge extra cost for same

Answer 1

Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Archika may be able to recover the amount paid for the bangles as they do not correspond to the description she requested. If the shopkeeper offers to repair the bangles but charge extra, Archika can reject this offer and still seek a refund.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this scenario, Archika requested the shopkeeper to show her gold bangles with white polish. The shopkeeper agreed to arrange white polish on the bangles Archika selected without any extra cost. However, when Archika came to collect the bangles after two days, she noticed that the design had been disturbed due to the white polishing. Archika wants to cancel the contract and get her money back, but the shopkeeper has refused.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Archika may be able to recover the amount paid for the bangles. The Act states that when goods are bought by description, the goods must correspond to that description. In this case, Archika specifically asked for gold bangles with white polish, but the white polishing has affected the design, thereby not corresponding to the description. Therefore, Archika has the right to seek a refund.

If the shopkeeper offers to repair the bangles but charge an extra cost, Archika can reject the offer. The Act does not require the buyer to accept repair as a remedy. Furthermore, since the design of the bangles has been disturbed, Archika can argue that the repair would not restore the bangles to their original condition. Therefore, Archika would still be entitled to a refund.