Home
Based on the context provided, here are the case laws relating to the sale of goods:
In Re Hirdaramani and Others - [1974] LKSC 3; (1974) 77 NLR 409 (28 January 1974):
This case discusses the application of the Sale of Goods Ordinance to a transaction involving currency. The court concluded that the Sale of Goods Ordinance does not apply to transactions alleged in the charges because 'moneys' in the plural must mean currencies, which are not considered 'goods' under the ordinance.
Jayasena Perera v. Ratnadasa - [1981] LKSC 35; (1981) 1 Sri LR 398 (8 April 1981):
This case provides clarification on the definitions within the Sale of Goods Ordinance, including the distinction between a 'sale' and an 'agreement to sell.' It explains that an 'agreement to sell' becomes a sale when the time lapses or conditions are fulfilled according to the contract.
In Le Vincent and Benjamin - [1976] LKSC 3; (1976) 78 NLR 433 (26 June 1976):
The case addresses the issue of whether a sale made in London could be considered a contravention of Section 5(1)(a) if the payment was made in Colombo. The court held that the word 'sell' should be given its ordinary meaning and that the Sale of Goods Ordinance did not apply to this situation.
Givendrasingha v. De Mel, R.F.S. - [1948] LKSC 31; (1948) 49 NLR 422 (21 May 1948):
This case discusses the application of English law to sales in the context of Sri Lankan law. It emphasizes that not only 'mercantile law' but 'the law' should be the same as would be administered in England in a similar case, including statutes related to the law of sale.
These cases illustrate various applications and interpretations of the Sale of Goods Ordinance in Sri Lanka, as well as the distinction between sales and agreements to sell, and the relevance of the location where a sale is made.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assistance. Click below link to get instant answers to all your legal queries.
www.lankalaw.net
In Re Hirdaramani and Others - [1974] LKSC 3; (1974) 77 NLR 409 (28 January 1974):
This case discusses the application of the Sale of Goods Ordinance to a transaction involving currency. The court concluded that the Sale of Goods Ordinance does not apply to transactions alleged in the charges because 'moneys' in the plural must mean currencies, which are not considered 'goods' under the ordinance.
Jayasena Perera v. Ratnadasa - [1981] LKSC 35; (1981) 1 Sri LR 398 (8 April 1981):
This case provides clarification on the definitions within the Sale of Goods Ordinance, including the distinction between a 'sale' and an 'agreement to sell.' It explains that an 'agreement to sell' becomes a sale when the time lapses or conditions are fulfilled according to the contract.
In Le Vincent and Benjamin - [1976] LKSC 3; (1976) 78 NLR 433 (26 June 1976):
The case addresses the issue of whether a sale made in London could be considered a contravention of Section 5(1)(a) if the payment was made in Colombo. The court held that the word 'sell' should be given its ordinary meaning and that the Sale of Goods Ordinance did not apply to this situation.
Givendrasingha v. De Mel, R.F.S. - [1948] LKSC 31; (1948) 49 NLR 422 (21 May 1948):
This case discusses the application of English law to sales in the context of Sri Lankan law. It emphasizes that not only 'mercantile law' but 'the law' should be the same as would be administered in England in a similar case, including statutes related to the law of sale.
These cases illustrate various applications and interpretations of the Sale of Goods Ordinance in Sri Lanka, as well as the distinction between sales and agreements to sell, and the relevance of the location where a sale is made.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assistance. Click below link to get instant answers to all your legal queries.
www.lankalaw.net
