Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 2782 = 1962 SLD 2782 = 1962 PLD 243
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No. 125 of 1959, decided on 15th December 1961.
Presented By: Illahibakhsh Khamisani and H. T. Raymond, JJ  
  Fakhruddin for Appellants.   J. H. Rahimtoola for
Respondents.   Dates of hearing: 7th, 8th and 11th December 1961.      

  MUHAMMADI COTTON FACTORY LTD.-Appellants  

VERSUS

  MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIES LTD.-Respondents

Law:

Section:

  Contract--Contract for purchase of goods - Breach by purchaser-Claim for damages on basis of re-sale by vendor-Lost, if claimed long after stipulated time for performance of contract has expired-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. SS.   Contract-Contract of purchase of goods-Breach Vendor, in suit, claiming damages on basis of re-sale of goods Cannot be permitted in appeal to set up alternative claim for damages on basis of market price-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73. Where, in a case for damages for breach of contract of sale, a party claims damages on the basis of a re-sale of the goods and falls to prove it, it cannot in appeal set up an alternative claim for damages on the basis of a market price. To allow a party to do so would be tantamount to allowing its claim without offering the other party any chance to defend itself.   Messrs Tikam Chand Bhag Chand v. Firm Kakhan Lal Din Dayal A I R 1937 Lah. 842 rel.   Narsinggirji Manufacturing Co. v. Budansaheb Abdulsaheb Kaji A I R 1924 Bom. 390 not approved.  JUDGMENT   KHAMISANI, J.-The present appeal arises out of a suit filed for claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 21,185-9-Don 21st Septem ber 1950.   The facts which led to the filing of the suit briefly are that the defendants-respondents contracted on 27th May 1949 to pur chase 5,000 maunds of cotton seed of new crop of 1949 at Rs. 6-15-0 per maund. The delivery was to be taken by them in the month of November 1949 at the option of the sellers. The buyers were to supply Bardana within a reasonable time before the due date of delivery. The payment for the supplies made was to be made against the Railway Receipts. The terms of this contract were accepted by a letter of confirmation sent by the plaintiffs-appellants on 13th June 1949. The agreement giving terms of contract has been brought on record as Exh. 6 whereas the letter of confirmation sent by the appellants is Exh. 7. The appellants thereafter on 14th November 1949 are alleged to have sent a letter, Exh. 8, calling upon the defendants-respondents to send Bardana as stipulated so that the goods contracted for; might be despatched. No reply to this letter is said to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register