| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4730 = 1965 SLD 4730 = 1965 PLD 374 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Suit No. 234 of 1954, decided on 29th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
A. Aziz for Plaintiffs. S. M. Sohail for Defendants.
Suit No. 234 of 1954, decided on 29th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
A. Aziz for Plaintiffs. S. M. Sohail for Defendants.
MESSRS A. C. YUSUF & Co.---Plaintiffs
VERSUS
MESSRS K. B. H. M. HABIBULLAH & Co. -----Defendants
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 29,39
Law: Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)
Section: 60,35
Contract Act (IX of 1872)-----S. 29-Agreement void only if meaning not certain or ascertainable - Agreement of sale in respect of goods imported from abroad - Clause in agreement stipulating that each shipment of goods would be treated as separate contract and buyer was bound to accept same even if shipment was in respect of part of goods only-Agreement, held, not void. Ramasami v. Rajagopala I L R 11 Mad. 200 Barkat Ram v. Anant Ram A I R 1915 Lah. 328 and Bengal Agency & Store Syndicate v. T. N. Khanna A I R 1949 Cal. 231 distinguished. Contract Act (IX of 1872)----S. 39 & Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S. 60-Wrongful repudiation by one party-Cannot, except by election of other party so to treat it, put an end to reciprocal rights and liabilities of contracting parties. Frost v. Knight L R 5 Ex. 322 and Florrie Edgridge v. Rustomji D. Sethna A I R 1933 P C 233 ref. Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)-------S. 35-Point of time when application for delivery to be made Depends upon terms of contract and nature of transaction provided in meantime there has been no breach on part of seller Clause in contract of sale of goods providing that goods here to be delivered from godowns of seller-Seller, before informing buyer to take delivery, failing to clear goods front customs within reasonable time-Buyer refusing to take delivery and instituting suit for refund of deposit-Seller resisting claim on ground that buyer had failed to fulfill obligation imposed by S. 35 in not applying for delivery Held, S. 35 did not impose obligation on buyer to apply for delivery after breach of contract committed by seller-Buyer, in circumstance, held, relieved of obligation to apply for delivery. Nune Sivayya and another v. Maddu Ranganayakulu and another A I R 1935 P C 67: D. L. Kumar and others v. S. Rambilas and other, A I R 1947 13ont. 293; Hussain Trading Co. v Haji Moosa, Haji Oomar P L D 1957 Kar. 311; Pakistan Khopra Mills v. Abdul Rashid Siddiki & Sons P L D 1957 Kar. 781; Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad P L D 1.960 Kar. 382 and Abdul Shakoor v. Karachi Trading Co. P L D 1962 Kar. 50 ref. Sale of goods------Buyer…