9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the contract between the parties. 2. Liability for non-delivery of goods. 3. Determination of damages payable by the defendant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Contract Between the Parties: The primary issue was to determine the nature of the contract between the parties. The contract was contained in two letters dated 27th March 1943. The plaintiff placed an order for six wagons of dust coal, and the defendant accepted the order "subject to the sanction of the authorities concerned." The defendant contended that the plaintiff was liable to supply railway wagons, while the plaintiff argued that the defendant was responsible for delivering the coal at Konnagar Railway Station. The court concluded that the phrase "sanction of the authorities" referred to the sanction from the Controller of Coal Distribution, not the railway authorities. The defendant had obtained the necessary sanction from the Controller of Coal Distribution, which satisfied the condition stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the contract was absolute and unqualified, obligating the defendant to deliver the coal at Konnagar Railway Station. 2. Liability for Non-Delivery of Goods: The defendant argued that non-delivery was excused due to the failure to obtain railway wagons. The court held that the defendant's interpretation of the contract was not permissible. The defendant should have included an express stipulation in the contract to exclude its liability on the ground of non-availability of railway wagons, which it failed to do. The court emphasized that the absence of such a stipulation meant that the defendant could not use the non-availability of wagons as an excuse for non-performance. The court found that the defendant's conduct and evidence did not support its claim. The defendant had not informed the plaintiff in writing about the difficulty in procuring wagons and had continued to indent for wagons without success. The court also noted that railway wagons were available for other consignments, and the plaintiff had received coal from other sources during the relevant period. Thus, the defendant was liable for the non-delivery of goods. 3. Determination of Damages Payable by the Defendant: The court determined that the breach occurred in February 1944, as evidenced by the correspondence between the parties. The prevailing market rate for coal at that time was Rs. 19 per ton, as per the bills of Beharilal & Co. The contract price was Rs. 10 per ton for six wagons, totaling Rs. 1,143. The court calculated the damages as the difference between the market price (Rs. 2,171-11-2) and the contract price (Rs. 1,143), amounting to Rs. 1,028-11-2. Additionally, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of Rs. 500 paid in advance. Conclusion: The court concluded that the defendant committed a breach of contract by failing to deliver the coal. The plaintiff was awarded damages totaling Rs. 1,028-11-2 and a refund of Rs. 500, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 1,528-11-2, along with costs. No interest was allowed.
|
