Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 73

  P L D 1957 Privy Council 61         Breach of contract--------Damages-Measure-Buyer's refusal to accept goods-Difference between contracted price and price h actually fetched in case there was no available market at time of breach-Onus to prove special damage-(Ceylon case)-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73.   According to section 49 (3) of Ceylon Sale of Goods f Ordinance, where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time or times when the goods ought to have been accepted, or, if no time was fixed for acceptance, then at the time of the refusal to accept.   In cases, however, where goods could not (reasonably) be sold at the date of the breach i.e., there was no avail able market, held that the amounts realised, later, if reasonable steps are taken will be the best-measure of their value at the relevant date.   Held further, that the onus was of course on the plaintiff to prove recoverable special damage but it was up to the buyer defendant to make clear and emphasize their case that there was market available at the time of the breach.     Solicitors: Y. L. Wilson & Co     Solicitors: Richards Butler & Co.   Date of hearing : 25th April 1955.   JUDGMENT   LORD SOMERVELL OF HARROW.------This is an appeal by buyers who wrongly rejected goods under a contract of sale. It is submitted on their behalf that the damages awarded are excessive and should be reduced or a new trial ordered.   Under a contract, dated 24th December 1946, the appellants, merchants in Colombo, agreed to buy from the respondents, merchants in Mobasa, 60 tons of cowpeas as per sample approved at 51 per ton c. i. f. Colombo ship ment per s.s. June Crest. The June Crest was then loading and arrived at Colombo on or about 14th January 1947. The documents with a bill of exchange for the contract price attached were forwarded to the National Bank and presented to the appellants. The appellants refused to accept the bill which was noted for non payment…