United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for the respondent, were not called on.

At delivering judgment—

Lore Chancellor—(After minutely reviewing the facts of the case and the correspondence which had taken place between the parties)—There can be no doubt that the Court below have come to a proper decision in this matter. The question related to two lots of wine bought by the defenders at a sale in Edinburgh, which were not conform to sample, there being four or five other lots bought as to which no question of quality has arisen. Both parties acted bona fide, but there appears to have been some unfortunate misapprehension between them as to the law applicable to the case. The law of Scotland is this:—It is not competent for a person receiving articles he has purchased, not conform to description of the sample, to retain the goods, and at the same time to raise any question about the payment of the price. There is only one of two courses open to him—either that of retaining them and paying the price, subject to any right or claim he may have as to any difference between the price and the actual value; or of notifying immediately, or within reasonable time, to the person from whom he purchased the articles that he rejects them, and that the contract is at an end between him and the vendor, and that the articles, if not removed, will be held at the risk of the vendor. Having regard to the nature of the article, I am disposed to think that timeous objection was made to the quality of the lots in question, but, on the other hand, I have failed to discover in the negotiations and correspondence which have taken place that any distinct intimation was given by the purchasers that the goods were rejected, and that they were held at the vendor's risk. The goods objected to were retained, not returned, and the price was refused. No distinct offer was made to return the goods even on the 15th June, the day after the action was commenced, and it was then too late. The defenders had no locus pœnitentice. The interlocutor complained of must therefore be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, with costs.

Lords Chelmsford, Colonsay, and Cairns concurred.