TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative attended the Sales, Committee meeting held by the Plaintiff at Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Madurai for fixing the price of sugar and gave a written tender on that day to purchase 500 bags of E. 30 sugar at ₹ 262 per bag. The said tender was accepted by the Plaintiff and the acceptance was duly communicated to the Defendant's representative who deposited then and there a sum of ₹ 5,000 representing ₹ 10 per bag as advance, agreeing to pay the balance of the sale price by 10th April, 1972 and take delivery of the entire 500 bags of E.30 sugar thereafter. Since the Defendant did not remit the balance of sale consideration till 8th April, 1972 a telegram was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to remit the full price on or before 10th April, 1972 and that the fixing of time for payment of the price and for taking delivery of the goods has been done unilaterally by the Plaintiff long after the Defendant submitted his tender and the same was accepted. Thus according to the Defendant there was no consensus between the parties as to the, time for payment of the balance of sale consideration and as to the time for taking delivery and that there is no question of the Defendant committing breach of the contract which has not been duly concluded. The Defendant also reserved his right to recover the advance amount of ₹ 5000 paid by him to the Plaintiff. 4. On these pleadings the Court below set out the following three issues for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72 and take delivery of the same, and but for such an agreement the telegram would not have-referred to the date 10th April, 1972. If is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that on 30th March, 1972 itself the contract has been concluded and only the payment of the price and delivery of the goods have been postponed and therefore the contract cannot be said to be in choate or incomplete. In this case exhibit A-2, which is the tender submitted by the Defendant's representative to purchase 500 bags of E-30 sugar at the price of ₹ 262 per bag does not refer to the time for payment of the price though, the Plaintiff would say that the tender was accepted and the Defendant was asked to pay the price and take delivery of the goods on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1972 and make arrangement to take delivery of the goods by 20th April, 1972. But unless there is an earlier agreement between the parties as to the time for payment of the price and for taking delivery of the goods the Plaintiff cannot unilaterally fix the time for payment of the goods and for taking delivery of the same and cannot cancel the contract again unilaterally after the Defendant has committed default in payment of the price and taking delivery of the goods as called upon within the date fixed by the Plaintiff On the materials on record we cannot say that the plea of the Plaintiff that the Defendant agreed to pay the price and take delivery of the goods by 10th April, 1972 has been proved. 6. Section 11 of the Sale of Goods Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed. In this case exhibit A-2, the tender submitted by the Defendant's representative does not refer to the time for payment of the price and the time for taking delivery of the goods. However, according to Section 20 the property in goods should be taken to have passed to the Defendant and the Plaintiff will be entitled to claim only unpaid vendor's lien but the Plaintiff in this case has not proceeded on that basis. Admittedly no notice has been given before the resale of the sugar which the Defendant failed to take delivery in pursuance of the contract and the Plaintiff has admittedly sold the consignment of 500 bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|