Goods and services can be supplied under a range of different contracts. In this case, the transfer of ownership would fall under Article 2 (1) of the sale. of Goods Act 1979, which states “A contract for the sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer ownership of the goods to the buyer for a monetary consideration, called the price”. It is therefore defined as a “contract for the sale of goods”. This is either (i) the sale of specific goods, or (ii) the sale of unspecified goods. As the facts show, this party did not specify which particular batch of 55 fixtures will be given during the conclusion of the contract. Therefore, according to the Sale of Goods Act, if the contract does not relate to the sale of specific goods, it must nevertheless fall within the sale of unspecified goods. (Kursell v Timer Operators) (Re Wait) Under section 16, subject to section 20A, where there is a contract for the sale of unverified goods, no ownership in the goods passes to the buyer unless and until the goods are verified. Therefore, if ownership is not transferred, risk is not transferred. Undetermined property can be determined by appropriation and by exhaustion. Deciding who will bear the consequences of wrongdoing depends on when ownership and risk transfer. This will differ depending on the classification of goods covered in ss16-19, which examines the intention of the parties. In a situation where intent could not be found, Section 18, Rule 1-3 would presume that there was intent.---------------- -------------- ------------------------------IMMPLIED CONDITIONSThe next crucial question is whether there is a breach of contract under the implied terms. SS12 to 15 in the Sale of Goods Act 1979...... middle of paper ...... the defendant was aware of the likelihood that the breach would give rise to such consequences. (Section 53(2) – losses arising directly and naturally (similar to 1st limb in Hadley v Baxendale) Section 53(3) – amends the above rule to The measure of damages for breach of quality warranty is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods on the date of delivery and the value they would have been if the seller had complied with the warranty Section 54 interest and special damages provided they are not too far apart (similar to the 2nd limb in Hadley v Baxendale) Conclusion, The Sale of Goods Act generally requires that the goods be of satisfactory quality, correspond to their description and are fit for any particular purpose which the buyer has made known to the seller. These requirements are implied by the law. in each sales contract.