( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the seller arises out of a suit by the buyer for the refund of the price in a case of breach of contract on the part of the seller.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated. The seller, who is the appellant, is a manufacturer of matches. He entered into a contract dated 9th june 1963, through his selling agent, to sell 600 bundles of "jyoti" brand matches. In breach of that contract, the seller despatched by rail 301 bundles of "jyoti" brand matches and included 299 bundles of "light House" brand matches to make up the consignment of 600 bundles. As this was a contract for sale of goods by description, there was an implied condition that the goods must correspond with the description. The buyer accordingly exercised his option under Section 37 (3) of the Sale of Goods Act and refused to take delivery. He was, however, prevailed upon by the agent to retire the Hundi for Rs. 18695. 30 and take delivery of the goods, on the promise that the seller would take back 299 bundles of "light house" brand matches on payment of cash. Thereafter, the agent instructed the purchaser to despatch the goods at his own expense to Jabalpur for delivery to one Lokesh Sahni, the local dealer of the seller and represented that Rs. 11,545/shall be paid by Lokesh Sahni in lieu of the price and the expenses incurred. Neither the agent nor the ultimate purchaser adhered to this arrangement. The buyer was informed that the agent had recovered the entire price. With great difficulty, the buyer was able to recover Rs. 3045/-from the agent and the agent on 16th October 1964, promised to pay to the purchaser Rs. 10,000/- in full and final satisfaction of his claim.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge has held that the seller was in breach of the contract. That finding has not been assailed before us. In the case of sale of goods by description, the rule is that the goods must correspond with the description (Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act ). Once it is established that a given contract of sale is a sale by description, the test applied by the Court to determine whether or not the goods correspond with the description is a strict one (See, Arcos, Ltd. v. E. A. Ronaasen and Son, 1933 All ER 646 (HL) ). In such a contract, a substantial failure by the seller to deliver goods that correspond with the description--for instance, a delivery of peas instead of beans -- means in effect that he has failed to perform his contract (See, Chitty on Contracts, p. 1516 ).

( 4 ) THERE is no warrant for the submission that the seller was absolved of all liability because the purchaser did not intimate him that he had rejected that part of the consignment which did not conform to the contract. There is overwhelming evidence on record to establish the fact that the buyer had duly intimated the agent that he refused to take delivery of 299 bundles of "light House" brand matches, which were goods of a different description not included in the contract. The correspondence shows that the agent had intimated the fact of rejection to the principal. The intimation of the fact of rejection to the agent was due intimation to the principal (Section 229 of the Contract Act ). ( 5 ) EQUALLY futile is the contention that the agent acted without authority in taking back the unwanted goods. The learned Judge in rejecting the contention rightly observes that the act done by the agent was "in every respect in the interest of his principal". He States as follows:-" if the defendant No. 1 had not succeeded in persuading the plaintiff to take delivery of goods and to retire the Hundi, one likely consequence was that the consignment would have remained with the railways. That would have caused a good deal of liability to the defendant No. 2 by way of demurrage etc. The act of the defendant No. 1 had resulted in removing that likelihood and in ensuring an early payment to the defendant No. 2. This act of the defend- ant No. 1, therefore