1980 (10) TMI 210 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether there was a concluded contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 30th March, 1972.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for breach of contract.
3. What relief, if any, should be granted.

Analysis:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages for breach of contract, alleging that a contract was formed on 30th March, 1972, for the sale of 500 bags of sugar at a specified price. The Defendant disputed the existence of a concluded contract, arguing that essential terms were not agreed upon. The Court below held that since there was no concluded contract on 30th March, 1972, there was no breach of contract. The Plaintiff appealed, asserting that the contract was indeed concluded based on the tender submitted by the Defendant and subsequent correspondence. However, the Court noted the absence of concrete evidence regarding the agreed time for payment and delivery, highlighting the need for explicit terms in a contract of sale. The Court emphasized that unless the parties agree on payment and delivery timelines, a contract cannot be deemed complete.

Furthermore, the Court referenced Section 11 of the Sale of Goods Act, which states that stipulations regarding payment time are not inherently essential unless explicitly specified. In this case, as the contract did not specify a payment deadline, the Plaintiff's unilateral cancellation due to non-payment within a set timeframe was deemed unjustified. Additionally, Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act was invoked, indicating that property in goods passes to the buyer upon contract formation, regardless of postponed payment or delivery. The Plaintiff's failure to follow proper procedures, such as issuing notice before reselling undelivered goods, further weakened their claim for damages.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff was not entitled to damages due to the absence of a concluded contract and the Plaintiff's own actions leading to the termination of the alleged contract. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.