Implied Warranties in which the law also incorporates into a contract of sale goods:
1. Warranty of quiet possession:
In every contract of sale, the first implied warranty on the part of the seller is that “the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods.” If the quiet possession of the buyer is in any way disturbed by a person having a superior right than that of the seller, the buyer can claim damages from the seller.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Since disturbance of quiet possession is likely to arise only where the seller’s title to goods is defective, this warranty may be regarded as an extension of the implied condition of title provided for by Section 14(a).
In fact the two clauses of Section 14 [i.e., (a) and (b)] are overlapping and it is not easy to see what additional rights this warranty confers on the buyer over and above those conferred by the implied condition as to title contained in Section 14(a).
Illustration:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The plaintiff, a lady, purchased a second hand typewriter from the defendant. She thereafter spent some money on its repair and used it for some months. Unknown to the parties the typewriter was a stolen one and the plaintiff was compelled to return the same to its true owner.
She was held entitled to recover from the seller for the breach of this warranty damages reflecting not merely the price paid but also the cost of repair (Mason vs Burningham). [Notice that the decision in the instant case would not change if we treat it as a case of breach of condition as to title under Sec. 14(a)],
2. Warranty of freedom from encumbrances [Sec. 14 (c)]:
The second implied warranty on the part of the seller is that “the goods shall be free from any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time when the contract is made.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If the goods are afterwards found to be subject to a charge and the buyer has to discharge the same, there is breach of warranty and the buyer is entitled to damages.
It is to be emphasised that the breach of this warranty occurs only when the buyer in fact discharges the amount of the encumbrance, and he had no notice of that at the time of the contract of sale.
If the buyer knows about the encumbrance on the goods at the time of entering into the contract, he becomes bound by the same and he is not entitled to claim compensation from the seller for discharging the same.
Illustration:
A, the owner of the watch, pledges it with B. After a week, A obtains possession of the watch from B for some limited purpose and sells it to C. B approaches C and tells him about the pledge affair. C has to make payment of the pledge amount to B.
There is breach of this warranty and C is entitled to claim compensation from A. [Notice that in the instant case the buyer (i.e., C) cannot allege breach of implied condition as to title against the seller (i.e., A) because the seller in fact had a title to the goods, though subject to the rights of the pledgee],
3. Warranty of disclosing the dangerous nature of goods to the ignorant buyer:
The third implied warranty on the part of the seller is that in case the goods sold are of dangerous nature he will warn the ignorant buyer of the probable danger.
If there is breach of this warranty the buyer is entitled to claim compensation for the injury caused to him. Romer L.J. observed, “I think that, apart from any question of warranty, there is a duty cast upon a vendor, who knows of the dangerous character of goods which he is supplying, and also knows that the purchaser is not, or may not be, aware of it, not to supply the goods without giving some warning to the purchaser of that danger.
Illustration:
C purchases a tin of disinfectant powder from A. A knows that the lid of the tin is defective and if it is opened without special care it may be dangerous, but tells nothing to C. C opens the tin in the normal way whereupon the disinfectant powder flies into her eyes and causes injury. A is liable in damages to C as he should have warned C of the probable danger.