Okay, I will provide a summary based on the prompt's guidelines. Since the provided case content is empty, I will create a hypothetical case summary based on Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to demonstrate the requested format and style.

Short Summary

This case concerns the application of Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which deals with goods perishing before the sale but after the agreement to sell. The court held that the agreement was void because the specific goods, essential to the contract, perished without the seller's fault before the risk passed to the buyer.

Facts

A entered into an agreement to sell 100 bales of cotton of a specific quality to B. Before the actual sale (transfer of ownership) could occur, and before the risk of loss had passed to B, a fire destroyed the entire stock of cotton of that specific quality in A's warehouse. A was not negligent in causing the fire. B sued A for breach of contract, claiming A was obligated to deliver the cotton.

Issues

1. Whether the agreement to sell was void under Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, due to the specific goods perishing before the sale.
2. Whether the seller was liable for breach of contract despite the goods perishing without their fault.

Petitioner's Arguments (B's Arguments)

B argued that A entered into a binding agreement to sell the cotton. The destruction of the cotton was A's problem, and A should be liable for damages for failing to deliver the goods as agreed. B contended that A should have insured the goods or taken other precautions.

Respondent's Arguments (A's Arguments)

A argued that the agreement was contingent on the continued existence of the specific cotton bales. Because the cotton perished without A's fault before the sale was completed, Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, applied, rendering the agreement void. A claimed that the risk had not yet passed to B.

Court's Reasoning

The court reasoned that Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, specifically addresses situations where goods perish without the seller's fault after the agreement to sell but before the sale is completed. The court emphasized that the agreement was for specific goods (100 bales of a particular quality). The destruction of all the cotton of that specific quality made performance of the contract impossible. Since the perishing occurred without any fault on the part of the seller (A) and before the risk had passed to the buyer (B), the agreement was deemed void. The court distinguished this situation from a contract for generic goods, where the seller would still be obligated to find substitute goods.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of A (the respondent). The court held that the agreement to sell was void under Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. B's claim for breach of contract was dismissed. A was not liable for damages.