| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 5417 = 1967 SLD 5417 = 1967 PLD 83 |
Sindh High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 107 of 1960, decided on 8th August 1966.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed and Ilahi Bakhsh Khamisani, JJ
Ali Ahmed Fazeel for Appellants. Hafiz Sultan Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 absent.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 107 of 1960, decided on 8th August 1966.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed and Ilahi Bakhsh Khamisani, JJ
Ali Ahmed Fazeel for Appellants. Hafiz Sultan Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 absent.
PUNJAB VEGETABLE AND GENERAL MILLS LTD.-Appellants
VERSUS
HUSSAIN BROTHERS AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1871)
Section: 73
Contract Act (IX of 1871)------- ------ S. 73-Contract for sale of goods-Breach-Suit for damages-Measure of damages: difference between contract price and market price prevailing on date of breach-Vendor having specified time allowed to deliver goods cancelling contract after making part delivery--Quantum of damage in such case: difference between contract price and market price on last day of specified period for performance of contract Plaintiff and defendant both wrongly assuming date of cancellation of contract us date of breach.-Defendant, in appeal against decree, not entitled to plead that plaintiff jailed to prove market rate ore date of actual breach, viz. the last date for delivery of goods. The measure of damages under section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 is the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing on the date of the breach of the contract. But the next question is ; what is the date of the breach of the contract where the seller before the expiration of the whole time for performance cancels the coutr3ct7 It is not the date or which a contract is cancelled if the performance was to take place on a later date. The anticipatory communication of the intention riot to perform the contract is a proof of the breach but the measure of damages is the difference between the con tract price and the market price prevailing on the date on which the contract was to be performed, because the breach actually takes place on that date even if the intention to commit it had been communicated earlier. Where, however, in a suit for damages, the plaintiff and the defendant both wrongly assumed the date of the cancellation of the contract by the defendant to be the date of breach and not suspecting that their assump tion was wrong claimed no issue with respect to the correct date of the breach of contract: Held, the defendant, in appeal against the decree passed against hits, cannot be allowed to take advantage of the omission of the plaintiff to produce evidence of the market price prevailing on the date of actual breach, vie: the last date on which contract was to be completed. Had the defendant pleaded at the trial…