Similarly, s.19(2) suggests that where the bill of lading makes the goods deliverable to the order of the seller or his agent, then the seller is assumed to have reserved the right of disposal Mitsui & Co. contract, and are marked ‘to the order’ of the seller, the intention of the parties, in the absence of any other provisions, would be that no property would pass to the buyer/holder of the bill of lading until other conditions, such as payment, have been satisfied Transpacific Eternity SA v. Where bills of lading are issued under an F.O.B. This s.19(1) highlights the importance of s.17(1), in the case of specific or ascertained goods, where property will pass when the parties intend it to pass. 15 which was implied in the relevant contracts. Furthermore, Perry, the first defendant, could recover damages from the wholesaler who in turn could recover damages from the importer, as in both cases because there had been a breach of s. It was held, that C could recover damages from Perry, the first defendant, for breach of s.14, as the catapult was not, inter alia, fit for the purpose for which it had been bought. The wholesaler brought the importer into the action alleging a similar breach of s. The wholesaler had bought the catapults by sample from an importer who had obtained the catapults from Hong Kong. Perry now brought the wholesaler into the action claiming a breach of the conditions in s. He (Perry) had tested the sample catapult by pulling back the elastic, but no defect had been revealed. Perry had bought the catapults by sample from a wholesaler. C sued Perry for breach of the implied conditions in s.14. The catapult broke while in use and C lost an eye. Perry 1 All E.R.36, C, a six-year old boy bought a plastic toy catapult from a newsagent’s shop run by Perry, the first defendant. that words which identify an essential part of the description of the goods should be considered. Hansen Tangen 1 W.L.R.989, H.L., seems to reinforce and support this view, i.e. Indeed, the subsequent case of Reardon Smith Line v. Christopher Hill A.C.441, H.L., where the majority of their Lordships thought that the key to s.13 was identification rather than reliance. Therefore, reliance is an absolute requirement for a sale of goods to be considered as a sale by description. It was held, by a majority, that as the sellers, D, denied expert knowledge, the buyers, D, could not have relied upon the description given, thus not a sale by description. Subsequently, C discovered that the painting was a forgery and worth a great deal less. C relying on their own judgment bought the painting. D also made clear to C that they were not experts on the particular painter. D stated to C that they had a painting by Munter for sale. 1 All E.R.737, C.A., both parties were art dealers. He (C) had relied to some extent on the description contained in the advertisement. It was held that C was entitled to damages for breach of section 13 even though he had seen and inspected the car. C inspected the car before he bought it He (C) later discovered that the vehicle consisted of a rear half of a 1961 Herald which had been welded to the front half of an earlier model. Taylor 3 All E.R.253, D advertised a car for sale as a 1961 Triumph Herald.