1. Case Citation in full
Niblett vs. Confectioner Material co.  AUER Rep 459.
Here, Niblett is the claimant and confectioner material co. is the defendant.
2. Introduction of the Case
Confectioner sold 3000 tins of condensed milk to Niblett on CIF Contract. Although the document did
not show which brand of condensed milk was the subject of the sale. Confectioner argued that under an oral contract it would be one of three brands- “Freedom’’, “Tucson’’ and “Nessley”. Confectioner delivered 2000 tins of “Freedom’’ and then 1000 tins of “Nessley’’.
In November, Niblett received a letter from Nestle, Stating that Nissely initiated Nestle trademark and asked Nissely not to sell it .It also threatened to take proceedings against Niblett. Niblett sign an undertaking not to sell, advertise or offer for sale the “Nessely’’ condensed milk. They can unsuccessfully asked confectioner to take it back and unsuccessfully applied for an export license for it.
Niblett claimed damages for Breach of warranty.
• That the milk was of merchantable quality.
• That confectioner had right to sell it.
• That Niblett should have enjoyed quite possession.
• There was an implied condition or warranty that the label on milk would not
Infringe any trademark.
3. Fact of the case
Confectioner agreed to sell 3K tins of condensed milk out of which 1K tin were labeled “Nessely”. Niblett was not aware of this fact trademark of “Nissely’’ was the imitation of “Nestle’’. “Nestle’’ asked the Niblett not to sell, advise or offer for sale ‘Nessely’. Niblett then filed a suit against confectioner for breach of warranty.
4. Principle of law
• Sec14 (a) Condition to title: According to this section its provide that in a contract of sale unless the circumstances of the contract one such as to show a different intention there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of sale, he has a right to sell the good and that in the case of an agreement to sale, he will have right to sell the goods at the time property is to pass. If the title turns out to be defective, the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and claim refund of the price plus damages even if buyer has the used to the goods.
• Sec14 (b) Warranty of quite possession: In a contract of sale, unless intention appears, there is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and shall enjoy quite possession of the goods. Thus if the right of enjoyment or possession of the buyer is disturbed by the seller or any other person, the buyer is entitled to sue the seller for damages.
The English court of Appeal, found that there was a clean breach of section 12 of English Sale of Goods Act 1893 because confectioners had no right to sell the goods as they were, and Niblett had never enjoyed quite possession.
6. Analysis of the Judgment
Niblett was prevented from selling the goods because the trademark of “Nessely’’ was the imitation of ‘Nestle’. Therefore the Niblett did not obtain quite right to possession (sec 14(b)) So, Niblett is entitled to reject the goods and claim for damages and price (if paid) sec (14(a).
We knew that seller has right to sell the goods and if the title seems to be defective the buyer have right to reject it and claim for damages if any and paid amount. There is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have the right to enjoy quite possession which if been disturbed then the buyer can sue the seller for damages for the same.