Philip Head & Sons Ltd v Showfronts Ltd
Where goods are to be delivered and laid by the seller, property does not pass until they have been installed, so the seller bears the risk of loss before then.
Facts
Philip Head agreed to supply and lay carpet at Showfronts's premises. The carpet was delivered in rolls to the premises, but was stolen before it could be laid. The question was whether property and risk had passed to the buyer when the carpet was delivered.
Legal principle
Mocatta J held that property and risk had not passed, so the seller bore the loss. The contract was to supply and lay the carpet, so the carpet was not in a deliverable state until it had been laid, under section 18, rule 2 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. The fact that the rolls had been delivered to the buyer's premises did not mean that property had passed, because the seller still had to do something to put them in the state required by the contract.
Related cases on passing of property and risk
- Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 240
- Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden [1949] 1 All ER 435
- 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
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.
