Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 664 2000 SLD 664 2000 PLD 22
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 183 of 1993, decided on 7th May, 1999. DATE of hearing: 11th August, 1993
M. SHAIQ USMANI, J
Abid S. Zuberi for Plaintiff. Shaukat Hayat for Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2. Ex parte.

MANHATTAN PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. ----Plaintiff

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another----Defendants

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 70

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 191 & 192---Agreement involving appointment of a sub-agent--­Whenever Government entered into any agreement with a party which involved appointing a sub-agent by said other party, Government invariably and rightly so reserved the right to approve or not to approve the appointment of such sub­agent which was done often for security reasons and also for keeping undesirable elements away from any direct dealing with Government---Reservation of such right or enforcing same would not entail or constitute an approval of sub-agent's work itself or creating any contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between the Government and such sub-agent. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 70--Conditions to invoke provisions of S.70, Contract Act; 1872---Three conditions must be met before invocation of provisions of S.70 of Contract Act, 1872; viz. that a person must lawfully do something for another person and deliver something to him; that in doing said thing or delivering said thing, he must not intend to act gratuituously; and that the other person for whom something was done or to whom something was delivered, must enjoy the benefit thereof---If a conclusion was reached to the effect that S.70, Contract Act, 1872 was applicable and if there was no contractual term fixing the compensation for the work done or services rendered, the Court could grant compensation "quantum meruit". (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 70---"Quantum meruit"---Meaning and grant of---Quantum meruit, was nothing but a reasonable compensation awarded on implication of contract to remunerate---Quantum meruit could not be granted where contract had provided for consideration payable in that behalf. (d) Words and phrases- ------ Quantum meruit"---Connotation. JUDGMENT The brief facts of the case as brought out in the plaint, are that the defendant No.2 entered into an Agreement dated 1-2-1990 with the defendant No.l for managing, operating and. conducting the fund raising scheme in Pakistan on behalf of Ministry of Health, Special Education and Social Welfare, Government of Pakistan. These schemes were designed to raise funds to finance certain…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492