Non-existent goods, risk and frustration
The first is the rules which apply when the goods did not exist when the contract was made, particularly the special example of the case where the goods did once exist but have perished. The second is the doctrine of risk which decides whether seller or buyer bears the loss if the goods are damaged or destroyed after the contract is made. The third concerns the application of the doctrine of frustration to contracts of sale.
The Sale of Goods Act provides that, where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, and the goods without the knowledge of the seller have perished at the time when the contract was made, the contract is void. Couturier v Hastie (1956) has been taken by some as an example of the general principle that if the parties’ agreement is based on some shared fundamental mistake, then the contract is void.HD movies download from Moviesnation.
The doctrine of risk
Goods may be destroyed or damaged after the contract is made. The principal tool used to allocate the loss which arises when the goods are damaged or destroyed after the contract is made is the doctrine of risk. Adopts the basic rule that risk is to pass at the same time as property. There seem, however, to be at least two kinds of case where risk may pass at a different time from property even though there is no expressed or implied agreement:
(a) In the case of sales of unascertained goods.
(b) In the case of sales of some specific goods.
The doctrine of frustration
The Sale of Goods Act deals expressly with frustration, but it is a very incomplete statement of the doctrine of frustration as applied to contracts of sale. It deals only with specific goods and it deals only with goods which perish, whereas frustration may involve many other events than the destruction of goods.All Movies HD Download free from here mp3mad
I use the word ‘defective’ here as a useful omnibus label to describe all the situations where the buyer has legitimate grounds to complain about the goods. In some of the situations, the goods will not be defective in a lay sense. So, if a seller contracts to sell a red car and delivers a blue car, the buyer may be entitled to reject it though a non-lawyer would not think the car defective.