Section 3 (3) of the Sale of Goods Act, CAP 31 of the Laws of Kenya
provides that a contract of sale maybe absolute or conditional. A conditional
contract of sale is one in which performance of the contract is based on a
certain condition specified in the agreement between the parties. If the
condition is not fulfilled, the party not at fault is relieved from performance
as the contract is deemed cancelled.
The condition might be something to
be performed by the buyer or by the seller or it may be the happening of a
future event beyond the control of the parties, or it may be an agreement for
the leasing or bailment of goods by which it is agreed that the bailee or lease
has the option of becoming the owner of such goods upon the fulfillment of the
terms of the contract. As was observed by the Court in the case of Kukal
Properties Development Ltd v Tafazzal H. Maloo & 3 others Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1992,
it is trite law that where the contract is subject to a future event, there is
no binding contract until and unless that condition subsequent is fulfilled.
A common conditional contract of
sale is a contract which contains a Retainer Clause. Retainer Clauses generally
give the seller the right to retain the title to the good until a certain
condition in the contract is fulfilled by the buyer. An example is where the
seller retains the title to the goods until the full purchase price is paid by
the buyer. In such a case the condition in the contract is full payment of the
purchase price and failure to fulfill this condition means that the title to
the good will not pass to the buyer.
In
conditional contracts of sale parties are deemed to have intended to become
contractually bound on fulfillment of conditions subsequent so that the
contract does not come into existence until those conditions are fulfilled. As
was stated in the case of Aberfoyle
Plantations Ltd v Cheng [1959]
3 All ER 910, which was a case of a conditional contract;
Until the
condition is fulfilled, there is no contract of sale to be completed, and,
accordingly………the parties must by implication be regarded as having agreed that
the contract must become absolute through performance of the condition.
Section
21 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act provides that where there
is a contract for the sale of specific goods, or where goods are subsequently
appropriated to the contract, the seller may, by the terms of the contract or appropriation, reserve the right of
disposal of the goods until certain
conditions are fulfilled; and in that case, notwithstanding the delivery of
the goods to a buyer, or to a carrier or other bailee or custodier for the
purpose of transmission to the buyer, the property in the goods does not pass
to the buyer until the conditions imposed by the seller are fulfilled.
While some
conditions may be implied from the provisions of the Act, some conditions have
to be specifically provided for in the agreement between the parties. Some of
the conditions that may are implied in the sale of goods act include;
·
Section
11 (1) of the Act states that where there is an agreement
to sell goods on the terms that the price is to be fixed by the valuation of a
third party, and the third party cannot or does not make a valuation, the
agreement is avoided (provided that if the goods or any part thereof have been
delivered to and appropriated by the buyer he must pay a reasonable price
therefore). The effect of this section is that where the price of the goods is
to be set by a third party, it is a condition that it will be done, and if the
valuation does not happen, the contract is avoided.
·
Section
17
of the Act which provides on sale by sample provides that In the case of a
contract for sale by sample there is—
(a) An implied condition that the bulk
shall correspond with the sample in quality;
(b) An implied condition that the buyer
shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample;
(c) An implied condition that the goods
shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable which would not be
apparent on reasonable examination of sample.
Failure for any other above conditions to
be fulfilled relieves the buyer from performance of the contract and the seller
cannot sue for specific performance.
·
Section
18
of the Act provides where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained
goods; no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until
the goods are ascertained. The aspect of ascertainment makes this a conditional
contract in which performance is not obligated until ascertainment has been
done.
Other implied
conditions include contracts of sale by description (section 15 CAP 31) and the condition that the seller has the right
to sell the goods (section 14 CAP
31).
The Sale of Goods
Act does not specify or limit the nature
of conditions which may render a contract not absolute. Determining
the conditions to the specific contract is left to the contracting parties
provided the parties operate within public policy standards. The right of
parties to impose conditions into a contract of sale is based on the principle
of freedom of contract. As was held by
Sir George Jessel MR in Printing and Numerical Registering Co.
versus Sampson (1875) 19 Eq 462
If there is one thing, which more than
another, public policy requires it is that men of full age and competent
understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that their
contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and
shall be enforceable by Courts of Justice.
Although this
principle was later analysed and in some ways curtailed by Courts of Justice in
order to align with the public policy standards, the law still stands that
parties to a contract are allowed the freedom to set their own terms to a
contract, which means that parties may put conditions to their contract. The
important thing to ensure when setting conditions in a contract is that those
conditions are not contrary to public policy standards. As was held by Lord
Denning MR in George Mitchell Ltd versus Finney Lock Seeds Ltd (1983) 2 AC 803, courts have the power to control
unfair terms in a contract and scrap them off on the ground that one party had
unequal bargaining power.
Courts will be
ready to uphold the conditions parties choose to include in their contract.
Performance will be excused if the party failing to perform can show that
indeed his actions and the reason for non-performance were well within the
terms of the contract. As was stated by Kukal Properties Development Ltd v Tafazzal
H. Maloo & 3 others Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1992 where the contract
is in writing and its terms are clear and unambiguous, no extrinsic evidence
may be called to add or detract from it, and the court will be ready to uphold
those terms.