| Citation(s) |
| 1965 SLG 117 1965 SLD 117 = 1965 PLD 489 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1963, decision dated: 24th June 1965.(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court ofWest Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 1st June1959, in Civil Appeal No. 19/9 of 1955)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Muhammad Bashir Sheikh Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for Appellant.
Respondents . Ex parte
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, N.W. F. P., (Now GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN)vsM. K. MUSAFIR AND ANOTHER
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 73,74
Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)
Section: 54
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 73 & 74-Breach of contract-Penalty stated in terms of agreement-Promisee not entitled to compensation by way of damages-Maxim : expressio unius est exclusio alterius applicable.In. a contract for sale of standing timber in a Government Forest, the purchaser was to pay the first installment of purchase �money by a certain date. Upon the purchaser's default the Government cancelled the contract and imposed the penalties contained in the relevant clause 11 of the contract. Among these penalties there was no mention of recovery of damages occasioned by re-sale of the timber; but Government proceeded to recover such damages in a civil suit. Clause 13 of the contract did contain a reference to Government's right to bring a civil suit for damages but this was consequent upon other defaults of the purchaser:Held, that reading the relevant clauses of the contract together, it was clear that the omission of a stipulation for re�sale at the risk of the purchasers, upon breach of the conditions specified in clause 11, was by . no means inadvertent, and consequently the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius was applicable to the determination of the remedies available to the Government. In the circumstances established, the Government was confined in respect of remedies to those expressly mentioned in clause I1 and the suit for damages was rightly dismissed. The expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule is applicable to the interpretation of such deeds provided the Court is satisfied that the omission has not occurred through mere accident. The possibility of inadvertent omission of a condition for re-sale at the risk of the purchasers in clause 11 was excluded, by the fact that clause 1I itself contained a provision to be applied in consequence of termination of the . agreement under that clause, and moreover, the immediately following clause, viz., clause 12 provided sufficient concrete safeguards to protect the interest of the Government against loss through default by the contractors in performance of the stipulations under clause 11. Colouohoun y. Brooks (1887) 19,Q B D 400 ref.(b) Sale of Goods Act…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register