P. purchased a T.V. set from S on 15 days approval test basis. Within 15 days T.V. set developed trouble due to fluctuating voltage in power supply. P wants to return the set. S refuses. Decide.

Nature of a Sale on Approval

When goods are sent by a seller to a buyer "on approval," or "on sale or return," or on other similar terms such as "on trial," the transaction is treated in law as a mere agreement to sell, and not as a completed sale. This is the precise legal character of the transaction between P and S — P did not become the owner of the television set the moment he took it home; he merely received it on a fifteen-day trial basis, during which he was to decide whether to keep it and thereby complete the purchase.

Section 24 and When Property Passes

Section 24 governs the point at which such a transaction ripens from a mere agreement to sell into an actual sale. The property and the risk in the goods remain with the seller until the buyer does one of the specified acts — namely, signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller, or does some other act adopting the transaction, such as pledging or reselling the goods, or fails to signify his rejection within the time fixed for return, or within a reasonable time if no time is fixed. Until any of these events occurs, the buyer occupies merely the position of a bailee holding the seller's goods, and it is only upon fulfilment of one of these conditions that the agreement to sell becomes a completed sale, transferring both property and risk to the buyer. In P's case, none of these triggering events has occurred — P has neither signified approval, nor adopted the transaction through any exercise of ownership, nor allowed the fifteen-day period to lapse without objection. To the contrary, the defect surfaced within the fifteen-day window itself, and P has promptly sought to return the set well within time.

Application to the Facts

Because property has not passed to P, the television set remains legally the property of S throughout the trial period, and correspondingly, under the general principle that risk follows property (Section 26), any defect or deterioration occurring during this period — through no fault of P — is a loss that falls upon S, not upon P. The voltage-fluctuation problem is not attributable to any mishandling or misuse by P; it arose from an external cause, namely the erratic power supply, and there is nothing on the facts suggesting P did anything to cause or contribute to the malfunction. P is therefore squarely within his rights under Section 24 to reject the set and return it to S within the stipulated fifteen days, since he has neither approved the goods nor done any act amounting to adoption of the sale.

S's Refusal Is Untenable

S's refusal to accept the return cannot be sustained in law. The whole object of a "sale on approval" arrangement is to give the buyer a genuine opportunity to test the goods before committing to purchase — if the goods reveal a defect during this very trial period, the buyer's right to reject is not merely preserved, it is the central purpose the clause was designed to protect. S cannot unilaterally convert what remains, in law, an unaccepted agreement to sell into a binding sale simply by refusing to take the goods back; the statutory scheme under Section 24 does not permit the seller to force acceptance upon the buyer before the trial period has run its course or before the buyer has himself signified approval.

Relevance of Fault and Reasonable Time

Two further nuances from the general law of sale on approval reinforce P's position. First, the "reasonable time" principle under Section 24 applies only where no fixed period for return has been specified; here, since a definite fifteen-day period was expressly agreed, P's right to return persists throughout that entire period, and he need not demonstrate any additional "reasonableness" so long as he acts within the specified window. Second, nothing in the facts suggests P did any act inconsistent with his position as a mere bailee during the trial period — he did not use the set in any manner exceeding ordinary testing, nor did he part with possession to a third person, nor otherwise deal with the set as though he were its owner; had he done so, this would have amounted to an act "adopting the transaction," converting the agreement into a completed sale and defeating his right to reject.

Conclusion on Rights of the Parties

P is entitled to return the television set to S, and S is bound to accept the return and refund whatever amount, if any, P may have already paid, since the underlying agreement to sell stands unperfected and property in the goods never passed to P under Section 24. S's remedy, if any, would lie only against the actual cause of the defect — for instance, against the manufacturer if the set was inherently unfit for use on fluctuating domestic voltage — but that is a matter entirely between S and his own supplier, and does not affect P's clear right to reject the goods and walk away from the unperfected transaction.

Summary Table