Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden
Where delivery is delayed through the buyer's fault, the goods are at the buyer's risk as regards any loss which might not have occurred but for the delay.
Facts
Mr Barden agreed to sell apple juice to Demby Hamilton, to be delivered in weekly instalments. The buyers delayed in taking delivery of the later instalments, and the remaining juice, which had been set aside for them, went bad. The sellers sued for the price of the juice that had gone bad.
Legal principle
Sellers J held that the buyers bore the loss. Under section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, where delivery has been delayed through the fault of either buyer or seller, the goods are at the risk of the party in fault as regards any loss which might not have occurred but for such fault. The juice would not have gone bad if the buyers had taken delivery on time, so they bore the risk of its deterioration, even though property had not passed to them.
Related cases on passing of property and risk
- Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 240
- Dennant v Skinner and Collom [1948] 2 KB 164
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- Healy v Howlett & Sons [1917] 1 KB 337
- Karlshamns Oljefabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp (The Elafonissos) [1982] 1 All ER 208
- Kirkham v Attenborough [1897] 1 QB 201
- Kursell v Timber Operators and Contractors Ltd [1927] 1 KB 298
- Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd [1986] PCC 121
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
