The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act to determine the acceptance and rejection of goods, and the impact of acceptance without reservation or rejection after a reasonable time on the buyer's claim.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The plaintiff in this action and the appellant in the appeal is the Government of Madras. It sued on the Original Side of this Court to recover from the respondent, a limited liability company trading in fire hose pipe, the sum of Rs. 24,982-6-0, moneys which it had paid to the defendant for goods supplied, the allegation being that the goods had proved to be of inferior quality. The contract was for the supply of 10,000 feet of hose. The hose was delivered in instalments between the 28th April, 1942 and the 3rd June, 1942. By the 8th May, 1942, the defendant had delivered 7,986 feet and had received payment in full for this quantity by the 15th May, 1942. The balance of the contract was delivered in three instalments between the 19th May, 1942 and the 3rd June, 1942, but these goods were not paid for. The Rs. 24,982-6-0 represented the price of the 7,986 feet supplied up to the 8th May, 1942. The defendant brought a counter-claim for the price of the goods delivered and not paid for, the amount being Rs. 6,559-13-0. The learned trial Judge (Charidrasekhara Aiyar, J.) held that the goods supplied were of inferior quality and consequently the plaintiff could have rejected them, but it had in fact accepted them; in any event the right of inspection and rejection was not exercised within a reasonable time. The plaintiff included in the plaint an alternative plea for damages for breach of warranty of quality. The learned Judge was of the opinion that there was no evidence on the record on which such damages could be assessed and he rejected this plea also. As he held that the plaintiff had accepted the goods, he gave the defendant a decree for the amount of the counter-claim.

2. It is necessary to set out the facts in detail. On the 13th January, 1942, the defendant wrote to the Special A.R.P. Officer a letter stating that it was in a position to supply best quality of canvas hose according to a sample sent with the letter at Rs. 1-13-6 per foot, F.O.R., Madras, delivery to be from its ex-Bombay stock, subject to prior sale. On the 17th January, the defendant wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Madras Fire Services, stating that the hose would be supplied in cotton canvas ply of 18 or 24 and that the company was in a position to supply about 1000 feet of hose pipe from its ex-Bombay stock, subject to prior: sale. On the 20th January, the Deputy Commissioner placed an order with the-defendant for 500 feet of 24 ply canvas hose for the purpose of testing it. On the 26th January, the defendant delivered 310 feet of this hose and stated that the balance of the 500 feet would be delivered shortly. On the 18th February, the; Deputy Commissioner wrote cancelling the order so far as it concerned the balance of 190 feet. Between the 26th January and the 18th February it had been ascertained that the hose leaked and was therefore unsuitable for the purposes - of the Madras Fire Services. On the 26th March, the defendant wrote stating that they could supply canvas hose, 2 1/2 inches by 24 ply,.which was of superior quality.

3. On the 11th April, the Deputy Commissioner sent 100 feet of the 310 feet of hose which was supplied on the 26th January, to the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills in order that it might be ascertained whether it would be possible to "rubberize " the inside of the pipe, and it was discovered that this could be done and, when done, the rubberization made the hose serviceable.

4. On the 21st April, Mr. Gray, the Chief Fire Officer, had an interview with Mr. P.S. Krishnamurthy, the defendants manager. According to Mr. Gray, he disclosed to Mr. Krishnamurthy that it was possible to render the hose serviceable by rubberization inside the pipe and that he intended to place an order for hose of the same quality as that of the 310 feet supplied on the 26th January. According to Mr. Krishnamurthy nothing was said with regard to the matter of rubberization. It is unnecessary for the purpos