Goods and services can be supplied under a number of different contracts. The transfer of property in this case is said to fall under Section 2(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979 which stated "A contract for the sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or undertakes to transfer the property of the goods to the buyer for a monetary consideration, called the price". Therefore it is defined as a "contract for the sale of goods". This applies to (i) the sale of specific goods or (ii) the sale of unascertained goods. Given that in fact the party has not specified which particular batch of 55 lighting fixtures will be supplied during the signing of the contract. Therefore, according to the Sale of Goods Act, if the contract does not cover the sale of specific goods, then it must fall under the sale of unascertained goods. (Kursell v Timer Operators) (Re Wait) Under section 16, subject to section 20A, where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods, no ownership of the goods passes to the buyer unless and until the assets are not ascertained. Therefore, if ownership is not transferred, risk is not transferred. Unascertained assets can be ascertained by appropriation and exhaustion. Deciding who would bear the consequences of the fault depends on when ownership and risk are transferred. It will differ depending on the classification of goods covered in ss16-19, which examines the intention of the parties. In the situation where intention could not be found, section 18 rule 1-3 would presuppose that there was an intention.---------------------------- -- ----------------------------- IMPLIED TERMS The next crucial question is whether there is a breach of contract of implied terms. Ss12-15 in the Sale of Goods Act 1979… halfway through… the defendant was aware of the likelihood that the breach would cause such consequences. (Section 53(2) – direct and naturally arising losses (similar to first part of the case of Hadley v Baxendale) Section 53(3) – amends the above rule to The measure of damages for breach of quality assurance is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods at the date of delivery and the value they would have had if the seller had honored the warranty Section 54 special interests and damages provided they are not too remote (similar to the second part of the Hadley v Baxendale case)Conclusion,The law on the sale of goods generally requires the goods to be of satisfactory quality, correspond to the description and are suitable for any particular purpose that the buyer has communicated to the seller. Such requirements are implied by law in every contract of sale.