Facts
The appellant sued the respondent in Uyole Primary Court, Mbeya, for recovery of 5,000/= being purchase price for a tyre the respondent had sold to the appellant. After being paid 5,000/= cash the respondent delivered the tyre to the appellant's house. On the facts of the case, the appellant got no opportunity to inspect the tyre. He was just told by the respondent that the latter had a tyre for sale and asked him to deliver it at his house. When the appellant found the tyre to be defective, that being the first time to see it, he went to ask for the refund of his money. The Primary Court gave judgment in favour of the appellant (original plaintiff). The respondent (original defendant) appealed to the District Court of Mbeya. The District Court allowed the appeal applying the principle of caveat emptor. The District Magistrate reasoned that the appellant was entitled to a reasonable inspection of the goods he intended to purchase, and that if the buyer omitted or neglected to do this at F the earliest opportunity he could not be allowed to take action at the later stage. On appeal by the appellant (original plaintiff) to the High Court of Tanzania.
Held: (i) The appellant saw the tyre for the first time after it had already been delivered to his house. He got no opportunity to inspect the tyre. So the question of the appellant having inspected the goods at the earliest opportunity does not arise. Thus, the principle of caveat emptor is inapplicable to this case.
(ii) in selling a defective tyre to the appellant the respondent committed breach of implied warrant on his part that the goods sold would be in reasonable condition.
Case Information
Appeal allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment