What are the rules relating to passing of property in case of: o Sale of specific goods o Sale of unascertained goods o Sale of future goods

This restates, from a different organizing angle, the passing-of-property scheme already traced through Sections 18 to 25 — the rules simply need to be regrouped here according to the three categories of goods the question specifies: specific, unascertained, and future goods.

The Governing Principle Before the Categories

Before turning to the three categories, it must be recalled that Section 19 lays down the master rule applicable to all specific or ascertained goods — property passes at whatever time the parties intend it to pass, that intention being gathered from the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the circumstances of the case. Sections 20 to 24 merely supply presumptive rules for discovering this intention where the contract itself is silent, and these presumptions yield readily to any contrary intention shown by the parties.

Passing of Property in Specific Goods

Specific goods are those identified and agreed upon at the time the contract of sale is made. The rules governing them are contained in Sections 20, 21, and 22, each addressing a different state in which the goods may find themselves.

Unconditional sale in a deliverable state (Section 20): Where the contract is unconditional and the specific goods are already in a deliverable state, property passes to the buyer the moment the contract is made, irrespective of whether payment or delivery is postponed to a later date. The statutory illustration is instructive: if B offers Rs 1,000 for A's horse, with both delivery and payment deferred to specified future dates, and A accepts, the horse becomes B's property at the instant of acceptance, notwithstanding that neither payment nor delivery has yet taken place. The Supreme Court applied this very rule in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, holding that in an auction of chattels, property passes to the successful bidder the moment his bid is accepted by the fall of the hammer. Conversely, where a fixed condensing engine, requiring severance and carriage "free on rail," was damaged before it ever reached the railway, the court held it had not yet attained a "deliverable state," so property (and hence the loss) remained with the seller.

Goods not yet in a deliverable state (Section 21): Where the seller is still bound to do something to the specific goods to put them into a deliverable state, property does not pass until that thing is done and the buyer has notice of it. The classic illustration is a shipbuilder who agrees to sell a vessel lying in his yard that still requires rigging and fitting for the voyage — property and risk remain with the seller until this work is complete and the buyer is notified. The same logic extends to goods under manufacture: property does not pass until the article is finished and delivered, or approved in its finished state, even if the buyer pays in instalments as construction proceeds, unless the parties expressly agree that property shall pass incrementally with each instalment.

Goods requiring an act to ascertain the price (Section 22): Where specific goods are already deliverable, but the seller must still weigh, measure, test, or otherwise act upon them to determine the price, property does not pass until this act is performed and the buyer has notice of it. The illustration given is a stack of bark sold at a fixed rate per ton — property in any unweighed remainder stays with the seller until it has been weighed and the buyer notified, even where part of the stack has already been weighed and handed over.

Passing of Property in Unascertained Goods

Unascertained or generic goods are defined only by description or sample, not identified and agreed upon at the time of contract. Section 18 lays down the threshold rule governing all such goods — no property passes to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. Until ascertainment occurs, the transaction remains a mere agreement to sell, not a completed sale; the Supreme Court has held that ascertainment takes place when the specific goods are actually separated out from a larger bulk and delivered or set aside for the buyer, and the mere fact that goods are to come from an identified stock does not, by itself, ascertain them.

Section 23 then supplies the operative rule once ascertainment is achieved — where goods of the contract description are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, in a deliverable state, either by the seller with the buyer's assent, or by the buyer with the seller's assent (such assent being express or implied, and given either before or after the appropriation), property passes to the buyer at that moment. The crucial distinction the courts draw is between a merely revocable intention to appropriate goods and an irrevocable, unconditional appropriation — a seller who sets aside particular bales in his own warehouse has not yet unconditionally appropriated them, since he remains free to substitute other goods until the buyer is notified and assents.

Section 23(2) adds an important deeming provision — where the seller delivers the goods to a carrier or other bailee for transmission to the buyer, without reserving any right of disposal, this act of delivery is itself deemed an unconditional appropriation, and property passes upon such delivery. This principle was applied by the Privy Council in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee, where the buyer's name was inserted as shipper in the mate's receipt, showing no reservation of a right of disposal, so property passed on shipment itself — this can be contrasted with situations where the seller takes the bill of lading in his own name, thereby reserving control and preventing property from passing until the price is paid. Section 25 permits sellers to reserve such a right of disposal deliberately, most commonly to secure payment before ownership transfers, as in Value Payable Post transactions where the seller retains control until the buyer pays on delivery.

Passing of Property in Future Goods

Future goods, under the scheme of the Act, are treated together with unascertained goods for purposes of the passing-of-property rules, since goods not yet in existence or not yet acquired by the seller obviously cannot be "specific" at the time of contract. Section 23 governs the sale of "unascertained or future goods by description," applying the identical rule of unconditional appropriation to both categories — property in future goods passes only when goods answering the contract description, and in a deliverable state, are unconditionally appropriated to the contract with the mutual assent of buyer and seller. Until such appropriation occurs, a contract for the sale of future goods necessarily operates only as an agreement to sell, since it is impossible for the seller to transfer property in goods that do not yet exist or that he does not yet own; the moment goods matching the description come into existence or into the seller's possession, and are unconditionally set apart for that particular contract, the earlier agreement ripens into an actual sale and property passes to the buyer.

Risk Follows Property: The Unifying Consequence

Across all three categories, Section 26 supplies the practical significance of these rules — unless otherwise agreed, goods remain at the seller's risk until property passes to the buyer, and thereafter they are at the buyer's risk whether or not actual delivery has taken place, subject to the qualification that a party whose fault causes delay in delivery bears the risk of any loss attributable to that delay. This was applied in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., where goods despatched from Kerala to Hyderabad were held to have passed in both property and risk to the buyer at the point of despatch, since the buyer had insured the goods and contractually agreed to bear transit loss.

Summary Table