Velji v Jivraj (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1949)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court held that ex-military tyres that were unused and not deteriorated in quality were 'new tyres' within the meaning of the contract. The ordinary meaning of 'new' as applied to manufactured articles is 'lately made or manufactured'. The appellant could not rely on an alleged special trade meaning that 'new' excluded tyres from military stocks, as none of the parties were regular dealers in tyres and no such custom was proven. Where the appellant inspected the tyres, found them to be new with 'Military' stamped on them, and the evidence showed the only tyres available for export to the Congo were from military stocks, the appellant was aware or should have been aware of the source.
Outcome
Judgment of the High Court of Tanganyika affirmed; plaintiff's claim for breach of contract upheld and defendant's counter-claim dismissed
Facts
The respondent sued the appellant for breach of two contracts for sale of new tyres and tubes documented in broker's notes. The appellant had contracted to purchase tyres for export to and sale in the Belgian Congo. The respondent supplied the correct quantity of tyres and tubes, which had been purchased from the Government Disposals Board and were ex-military tyres from Army surplus stock. The appellant inspected the tyres, found them to be new but with the word 'Military' stamped on them, and subsequently rejected them on grounds they were not in accordance with the contract terms. An expert engaged by the appellant reported all tyres were in new condition, unused, and showed no evidence of storage deterioration. The respondent sold the goods and claimed the difference between contract price and sum realised. The appellant counter-claimed for damages for loss of profits. Neither party was a regular dealer in tyres and this was a first transaction in tyres for both.
Issues
- Whether ex-military tyres purchased from Government Disposals Board and described as 'new' in broker's notes constituted 'new tyres' within the meaning of the contract.
- Whether there was fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent in supplying ex-military tyres under a contract for 'new tyres and tubes'.
- Whether the word 'new' had a special meaning in trade custom requiring tyres not to have lost their 'commercialness' by being sold to and stored by the Army.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Anderson v Scrutton (E & E Digest 1940 Supp p 41)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.