Rowland v Divall
Rule established
Breach of the implied condition as to the seller's right to sell produces a total failure of consideration. The buyer may recover the entire price with no deduction for the period during which he used the goods, because he never obtained ownership.
Facts
- The defendant sold a motor car to the plaintiff, a car dealer.
- The plaintiff resold it and the sub-buyer used it for about two months.
- It then emerged that the car had been stolen before the defendant acquired it.
- The car was returned to the true owner.
- The plaintiff refunded his sub-buyer and sued the defendant to recover the whole of the price he had paid.
- The defendant argued that an allowance should be made for the use the plaintiff and his sub-buyer had enjoyed.
Issue
- Whether a buyer who has had the use of goods for a period may nevertheless recover the entire price on discovering that the seller had no right to sell.
Held
- The plaintiff recovered the entire price without any deduction. Atkin LJ reasoned that the whole object of a contract of sale is the transfer of property. Since the seller had no right to sell, no property passed, and the buyer therefore received no part of what he had contracted for. The use of the car was not what he bargained for and was not a benefit received under the contract. There was accordingly a total failure of consideration and the price was recoverable in full.
Ratio Decidendi
The consideration for the price in a sale is the transfer of ownership. Where the condition in S.14(a) is broken, that consideration wholly fails, and the buyer's claim is restitutionary rather than compensatory. Enjoyment of possession is not a partial performance capable of being set off against the price.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading authority on breach of the right to sell condition, S.14(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930.
- The point examiners test is the absence of any allowance for use, which often strikes students as counterintuitive.
- Contrast with breach of the warranties in S.14(b) and S.14(c), which sound only in damages.
- Pair with Niblett v Confectioners' Materials Co (1921), which extends the condition beyond ownership to the seller's legal ability to sell.
Source
Source: [1923] 2 KB 500; leading authority on breach of the title condition; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.