Introduction
This essay examines the classification of two items acquired by Chike, an entrepreneur in Jos, under Nigerian commercial law, specifically whether they fall within the legal definition of ‘goods.’ The items under consideration are a unique hand-carved wooden sculpture by a renowned local artist and a future harvest of cashew nuts from a specific plantation in Enugu, contracted while the trees are still flowering. The analysis draws on the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which, though a UK statute, has been adopted and applied in Nigeria through historical legal frameworks, as well as relevant Nigerian case law and legal principles. The essay aims to demonstrate a sound understanding of the definition and classification of ‘goods,’ highlighting key distinctions between tangible, existing items and future or speculative assets. It will argue that while the sculpture likely qualifies as ‘goods,’ the cashew nuts may not, due to their status as future goods not yet in existence at the time of the contract.
Legal Definition of ‘Goods’ in Nigerian Commercial Law
Under Nigerian commercial law, the definition of ‘goods’ is primarily derived from the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which aligns closely with the UK’s Sale of Goods Act 1979 and has been domesticated in Nigeria. Section 61(1) of the Act defines ‘goods’ as “all chattels personal other than things in action and money,” encompassing tangible, movable property that exists at the time of the contract or is capable of being delivered (Sale of Goods Act, 1979). Importantly, the Act distinguishes between existing goods, which are owned or possessed by the seller at the time of the contract, and future goods, which are to be manufactured or acquired by the seller after the contract is made. This distinction is critical to determining whether Chike’s acquisitions qualify as ‘goods’ under the law. Furthermore, Nigerian courts often rely on precedents and legal texts to interpret these provisions, ensuring consistency in commercial transactions (Ojo, 2010).
The Wooden Sculpture: A Clear Case of ‘Goods’
The hand-carved wooden sculpture, created by a renowned local artist and displayed at an art exhibition, appears to meet the criteria for ‘goods’ under the Sale of Goods Act. As a tangible, movable item already in existence at the time of acquisition, it qualifies as an existing good. The sculpture is a specific chattel personal, uniquely identifiable due to its artistic nature and origin. Courts in Nigeria, such as in the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989), have upheld that specific, existing items fall within the ambit of ‘goods’ when they are the subject of a sale contract (Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya, 1989). Therefore, it is reasonably clear that Chike’s purchase of the sculpture constitutes a transaction involving ‘goods,’ as it aligns with the statutory definition and judicial interpretation. Indeed, the physical presence of the item at the exhibition further solidifies this classification.
The Cashew Nuts: A Question of Future Goods
The second item, the cashew nuts to be harvested next season from a specific plantation in Enugu, presents a more complex issue. At the time of the contract, the trees are still flowering, meaning the nuts do not yet exist as tangible property. Under Section 5(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, future goods are defined as goods to be manufactured or acquired by the seller after the making of the contract of sale (Sale of Goods Act, 1979). While future goods can be the subject of a valid contract, they are not considered ‘goods’ in the same immediate sense as existing goods until they come into existence and are appropriated to the contract. Nigerian legal scholars, such as Sagay (1999), argue that contracts for future harvests often fall into the category of agreements to sell rather than sales of goods, as property does not pass until the goods are ascertainable (Sagay, 1999). Thus, Chike’s contract for the cashew nuts likely does not involve ‘goods’ at the time of agreement, though it may transform into such upon harvest and delivery.
Moreover, there is an element of uncertainty in agricultural products, as the harvest may fail due to natural factors. This speculative nature further complicates the classification, as Nigerian courts have occasionally ruled that contracts for future crops carry inherent risks that question their immediate status as ‘goods’ (Ojo, 2010). Generally, unless the nuts are harvested and specifically appropriated to Chike, they remain outside the strict definition of ‘goods.’
Conclusion
In summary, this essay has evaluated the classification of two items acquired by Chike under Nigerian commercial law. The hand-carved wooden sculpture qualifies as ‘goods’ due to its tangible, existing nature as a specific chattel personal, aligning with the statutory definition in the Sale of Goods Act and supported by judicial precedents. Conversely, the future harvest of cashew nuts does not currently fall under the definition of ‘goods,’ as they are not yet in existence and remain speculative, classified instead as future goods or an agreement to sell. These distinctions are critical for entrepreneurs like Chike, as they impact the legal enforceability of contracts and the transfer of property. The analysis highlights the nuanced application of commercial law in Nigeria, where the timing and nature of goods significantly influence legal outcomes. Further research into specific Nigerian agricultural contracts could provide deeper insights into managing such speculative transactions.
References
- Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250. Supreme Court of Nigeria.
- Ojo, O. (2010) Nigerian Commercial Law and Practice. Lagos: Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria Press.
- Sagay, I. E. (1999) Nigerian Law of Contract. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
- Sale of Goods Act (1979) Cap S4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
