CASE ANALYSIS

LAW ASSIGNMENT

BY: Ankita Jindal

MBA (IBF)
1226215101
1. Case citation in full
Niblett vs. confectioners Materials co. [1921] All ER Rep 459
Here, Niblett is the claimant and confectioner’s materials co. is the defendant
2. Introduction to the case
Confectioners’ sold 3000 tins of condensed milk to Niblett’s on CIF contract. Although
the documents did not show which brand of condensed milk was the subject of the sale,
confectioners’ argued that under an oral contract, it would be one of three brands-
“Freedom”, “Tucson”, “Nissley”. Confectioners’ delivered 2000 cases of “Freedom” and
then 1000 tins of “Nissley”.
In November, Niblett’s received a letter from Nestle, stating that “Nissley” imitated the
Nestle trademark and asked Niblett not to sell it. It also threatened to take proceedings
against Niblett. Niblett signed an undertaking not to sell, advertise or offer for sale the
“Nissley” condensed milk. They then unsuccessfully asked confectioners’ to take it back
and unsuccessfully applied for an export licence for it.
Niblett claimed damages for breach of warranty:-
 That the milk was of merchantable quality;
 That confectioners’ had a right to sell it;
 That Niblett should have enjoyed quite possession;
 There was an implied condition or warranty that the label on the milk would not
infringe any trademark.
3. Fact of the case
Confectioner agreed to sell 3000 tins of condensed milk out of which 1000 tins were
labeled ‘Nissley’. Niblett was not aware of the fact that the trademark of ‘Nissley’ was
the imitation of ‘Nestle’. Nestle asked the Niblett not to sell, adverise or offe for sale
‘Nissley’. Niblett then filed a suit against confectioners’ for breach of warranty.
4. Principle of law
 Sec. 14(a) condition as to title: provides that in a contract of sale unless the
circumstances of the contract are such as to show a different intention there is an
implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale, he has a right
to sell the goods and that in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right
to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass. If the title turns out to be
 defective, the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and claim refund of the price
plus damages even if buyer has used the goods.
 Sec. 14(b) warranty of quite possession: in a contact of sale, unless intention
appears, there is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and shall enjoy
quite possession of the goods. Thus, if the right of enjoyment or possession of the
buyer is disturbed by the seller or any other person, he buyer is entitled to sue the
seller for damages.
5. Judgment as per the court of law
Bankers NJ, of the English Court of Appeal, found that there was a clear breach of
section 12 of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893(s.17 SOGA) because confectioners’
had no right to sell the goods as they were, and Niblett had never enjoyed quite
possession.
6. Analysis of the judgment
Niblett was prevented from selling the goods because the trade mark of ‘Nissley’ was the
imitation of ‘Nestle’. Therefore the Niblett did not obtain quite right to possession (sec.14
(b)). So Niblett is entitled to reject the goods and claim for the damages and price (if
paid) (sec.14 (a)).
7. Related case reference
Rowland vs. Divall [1923] 2K.B. 500
A purchased a car from B who had no title to it. A used the car for several months. After
that, the true owner spotted the car and demanded it from A.
Held: that A was bound to hand over the car to its true owner and that A could
successfully sue B, the seller without title, for the recovery of the purchase price even
though several months had passed.
8. Conclusion
From the case of Niblett vs. confectioner material co. and its related case i.e. Rowland
vs. Divall we knew that the seller has the right to sell the goods and if the title turns to be
defective the buyer has the right to reject the goods and claim for the damages if any and
the paid amount. There is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have the right to enjoy
quite possession which if been disturbed then the buyer can sue the seller for the damages
for the same.
In Niblett case the trademark of ‘Nissley’ was the imitation of ‘Nestle’ due to which the
right of Niblett to enjoy quite possession and so he has the right to sue the seller i.e.
confectioners’ which he had done and the judgment was that it is a clear breach of
warranty.
9. Reference
 Slide 7 and 8 of the below link ppt https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjACahUK
Ewj_hOml6PvIAhWJj5QKHf5JCXg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsydney.edu.au%2Flec
%2Fsubjects%2Fcommercial%2Ftopic_notes%2FWinter%25202011%2FModule
 %25206%2520B2B%2520Winter
%25202011.ppt&usg=AFQjCNFHxmQIEGw_YScGo_dcCUCLL0bAsw
 16th edition of Business Law including Company Law by S.S. Gulshan and G.K. Kapoor
Sale of goods act, 1930 page no. 161 and 165