Start with readiness and the request
Section 44 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 addresses a buyer who does not take delivery within a reasonable time after the ready-and-willing seller requests it. The seller may claim loss occasioned by the neglect or refusal and a reasonable charge for care and custody. A storage invoice alone does not prove those conditions. Preserve the goods' readiness, conformity and the actual request to collect them. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Build a dated collection history
Keep the contract's collection arrangements, ready-for-delivery records, the buyer's communications and any agreed postponement together. Identify the period that is legally relevant after allowing the reasonable time required by the section. Do not treat the dispatch-ready date, invoice date and recoverable custody start date as automatically identical. The worked models stipulate valid charge periods rather than inventing a universal grace period. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Support reasonableness, not merely a tariff
Record what was required to care for and hold the goods, the actual facilities used and the evidence supporting a reasonable charge. A unilateral daily rate is not automatically a statutory rate. Agreed terms can be important but must be assessed with the governing contract and law. Separate ordinary planned handling from incremental custody arising from the established delay, and keep excluded or disputed items visible. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Prove the caused loss independently
The loss limb requires a connection to the buyer's neglect or refusal. Document the event, amount and causal basis rather than inserting the entire contract value or every business overhead as loss. Avoid counting the same storage cost both as a custody charge and again inside a loss total. The examples expressly assume the amounts are legally recoverable, reasonable and non-overlapping; the arithmetic does not establish those findings. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Do not confuse custody claims with other remedies
The section's proviso preserves the seller's rights where neglect or refusal amounts to repudiation. It does not say every late collection automatically repudiates the bargain. Price claims, lien, resale and damages have their own applicable conditions. A collection-delay working should therefore identify what it calculates and what it leaves for separate legal review, rather than asserting an automatic right to sell the goods or retain all buyer payments. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Reconcile settlements and continuing custody
Track the valid charge period, units, rates, caused loss, agreed credits and payments against the same claim. If goods are collected in parts, support the changing quantity held and avoid charging for goods no longer in custody. Close the schedule at the established end event and preserve any disputed extension. The examples exclude tax, interest and litigation costs; each needs its own legal and numerical basis if relevant. Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44.
Applicable primary references
Government-hosted Sale of Goods Act: section 44
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts below are fictional. Assumptions describe the model, not additional statutory rules.
Illustrative example 1: Reasonable daily custody charge
Assume all section 44 conditions, a legally supportable twelve-day charge period and a reasonable rate ₹1,000 per day for the goods held. The charge is ₹12,000. Neither the twelve days nor ₹1,000 is prescribed by the Act; both are supported assumptions.
Illustrative example 2: Separate caused loss
Assume recoverable non-overlapping loss ₹18,000 plus a reasonable custody charge ₹12,000. Total model claim is ₹30,000. Do not add the ₹12,000 again if the loss figure already contains it.
Illustrative example 3: Partial collection changes the units
Assume 100 pallets are held for five valid charge days, then 40 are collected and 60 remain for a further five days. At a stipulated reasonable ₹20 per pallet-day, charges are ₹10,000 and ₹6,000, totalling ₹16,000. Charging all 100 pallets for ten days would overstate the model by ₹4,000.
Illustrative example 4: Exclude unsupported days
Assume a claim lists fifteen days at ₹800 per day, but only ten days are established as chargeable on the facts. Supported custody charge is ₹8,000 rather than ₹12,000, a ₹4,000 reduction. This is an evidence finding assumed by the model, not a statutory ten-day rule.
Illustrative example 5: Credit an agreed settlement payment
Assume a valid combined claim ₹30,000, an enforceable agreed credit ₹5,000 and ₹10,000 paid against that same claim. Remaining balance is ₹15,000. A payment for the goods' price is not automatically a credit against custody charges without the supported allocation.
Illustrative example 6: Remove a duplicate cost
Assume a draft claims ₹9,000 custody and ₹14,000 caused loss, but ₹4,000 of the loss repeats the same custody cost. Non-overlapping loss is ₹10,000 and total corrected model claim ₹19,000 rather than ₹23,000.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Preserve the collection terms | Identify the contractual delivery and collection arrangement. |
| 2 | Prove readiness and willingness | Keep goods, inspection and performance evidence. |
| 3 | Retain the actual request | Record the seller's communication asking the buyer to take delivery. |
| 4 | Assess reasonable time | Support the legally relevant delay period from the facts. |
| 5 | Track goods held | Reconcile quantities and any partial collections. |
| 6 | Support custody reasonableness | Preserve facilities, rates and actual care evidence. |
| 7 | Prove caused loss | Document connection to the neglect or refusal and the amount. |
| 8 | Remove duplicate costs | Separate custody charges from overlapping loss items. |
| 9 | Apply supported credits and receipts | Match settlement allocations to the same claim. |
| 10 | Review separate remedies | Assess any price, repudiation, resale or other claim independently. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Does a storage invoice alone establish section 44?
No. Prove the statutory conditions.
2. Must the seller be ready and willing to deliver?
Yes.
3. Must the seller request the buyer to take delivery?
Yes. Preserve that request.
4. Does the statute prescribe one universal collection grace period?
No. It uses reasonable time after the request.
5. Is the invoice date automatically the charge start date?
No. Review the terms and facts.
6. Is any unilateral rate automatically reasonable?
No. Support the charge's reasonableness.
7. Does the Act prescribe the examples' daily rates?
No. They are express valid assumptions.
8. Can caused loss be claimed separately?
The section addresses loss occasioned by the neglect or refusal, subject to proof.
9. Can all ordinary overheads automatically become caused loss?
No. Establish the causal and amount basis.
10. Can one cost appear in both custody and loss totals?
Remove overlap to avoid double counting.
11. Do partial collections matter?
Yes. Reconcile the actual goods still held.
12. Does every delayed collection repudiate the whole contract?
No. The proviso preserves rights where repudiation is established.
13. Does section 44 automatically establish a resale right?
No. Review the separate applicable conditions.
14. Are taxes and interest included in these models?
No. They need separate legal and calculation support.
15. Can any buyer payment automatically reduce this claim?
Use the supported allocation and settlement terms.
16. What should the reviewer trace?
Readiness, request, reasonable period, quantities, reasonable charges, caused loss and non-duplicated settlement balance.
Conclusion
Section 44 requires the seller to be ready and willing to deliver, a request to take delivery, and failure within a reasonable time. Prove those conditions before quantifying caused loss and reasonable care or custody charges.