1.unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state – property passes when the contract is made
See Bodilingo Pty Ltd v Webb Projects Pty Ltd (1990) ASC ¶ 56-001 text 227
2.contract for the sale of specific goods and the seller is bound to do something to the goods to put them in a deliverable state - property does not pass until that thing has been done and the buyer has notice of that (eg registration of a car)
See Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate [1922] 1KB 343 text 228
3.  contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state but the seller has to weigh, measure, test or do something to the goods to determine the price -property does not pass until that thing has been done and the buyer has notice of that
4.  goods delivered on approval – property passes
See Kirkham v Attenborough [1897] 1 QB 201 text 229
Atari Corporation (UK) Ltd v Electronic Boutique Stores (UK) Ltd [1998] QB 539 text 229
  EB received computer games from Atari on terms providing for sale or return until 31 Jan, On 19 Jan EB wrote to Atari saying it would return unsold goods. Atari had to accept return even though goods not returned by 31 Jan. Notice of rejection prior to 31 Jan sufficient.
  D agreed to sell 140 bags of rice to P (unascertained). P paid and was told 125 bags at wharf for collection and 15 bags available for collection at D’s business premises. P waited a month and then went to collect the 15 bags only to discover they had been stolen. P sued. Who bore the loss?
Rule 5 cont – What is  unconditional appropriation?
  Includes unconditional delivery to a carrier.
Wardar’s (Import & Export) Co Ltd v W Norwood & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 663 text 231
  Contract to buy 600 cartons of frozen kidneys Carrier arrived at 8 am to collect and handed over delivery note. Loading not  complete until noon by which time the cartons were thawing and the following day at the plaintiff’s premises were unfit for human consumption. The plaintiff sued. When did property and risk pass?
  -nemo dat rule – generally only the true owner can pass good title
  -nemo dat quod non habet – you cannot sell what you do not own – you cannot pass a better title than you have yourself
  Murphy owned a Bedford van and wanted to purchase a Chrysler sedan but didn’t have the deposit. The car dealer suggested that the he tell the finance company that the dealer owned both vehicles and Murphy wanted to buy both of them. The car dealer would then sell both to the finance company and M would take them both back on hire purchase. The finance co only accepted the proposal for the Bedford which M already owned
  The car dealer told M the deal was off but proceeded to transfer the Bedford to the finance company which then sought to repossess when payments weren’t made.
  In the meantime M had sold his business including the van to Goldring
  Who had title - the finance company or Goldring?
  agent having in the customary course of his or her business as a mercantile agent authority either to sell goods or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods or to raise money on the security of goods or of documents of title to goods 
  Lewis v Averay [1927] 1 QB 198 refer to earlier work on mistake.
  Car dealer sold its stock to the finance company to finance its operations. The finance co allowed the dealer to display the cars and sell them to the public. It withdrew that authority but 16 cars were sold after that time. Did the purchasers of the 16 cars get good title?
 
Against the goods:
Against the buyer:

Who is a consumer? S 3
A consumer is a person who:
A person is not a consumer
  Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 text 300 – R bought a car from D –  unknown to D the car had been stolen and was repossessed by police. R successfully sued D – he had not received title (ownership).
- There is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have quiet possession
  Microbeads AG v Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 218 text 301  - defendants bought 3 road marking machines but didn’t get quiet possession because they were sued by another party claiming their patent was being infringed
  Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 text 302
  Reaping machine described as new last year and had cut only 50 – 60 acres. Machine was older and in worse condition – breach - as goods did not correspond with description
  Beale v Taylor [1967]  3 All ER 253
  Described as 1961 Herald convertible – breach – back half was 1961 – welded to the front half of an earlier model
  Merchantable quality s 19(3) –
  Willis asked an employee for a pair of walking shoes to accommodate her bunion. The heel fell off on the third occasion of wearing them and Willis broke her leg. Shoes not of merchantable quality or fit for their purpose.

  (1)     Subject to subsection (2), if the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether the seller is a manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for that purpose.

  (2)     For a contract for the sale of a specified article under a trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for a particular purpose.
  Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
  Griffiths had a Harris tweed coat made by a tailor for her. She developed dermatitis from wearing the coat but it would not have affected a normal person. Griffiths had abnormally sensitive skin – coat was of merchantable quality -no breach of fitness for purpose – she didn’t make her particular requirements known.
  Suppliers sold nut extract to manufacturers of cattle and poultry foods. The extract was suitable for cattle and older poultry but not young poultry. Supplier sold to manufacturer which only made poultry foods. Purchasers of the meal made with the extract lost young poultry.
  Nut extract was of merchantable quality – fit to be made into meal for cattle and older poultry (where several usual purposes it is OK if suitable for any one of them) but not fit for purpose – supplier knew manufacturer only made poultry food.