Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2740 2007 SLD 2740 = 2007 CLD 1445
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.95 of 2006, heard on 1st March,2007.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J
Mian Muhammad Kashif for Appellant.Kh. Muhammad Akram for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD AMIN BROTHERS (PVT.) LIMITED through DirectorvsPAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED

Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)

Section: 15

(a) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930)------S.15---Sale by description---Use of term "as is where is" in relation to delivery of goods---Inspection of goods when not relevant---Principle of contra proferentum---Contract for sale of Basmati Special Rice was awarded to appellant by respondent---Appellant lifted some of the agreed quantity but refused to lift remaining stock as rice did not meet the description set out in the contract between the parties---Appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance of contract, claimed damages and refund of security amount along with the sum deposited by it with respondent in excess of the security amount---Defence set up by respondent was that sale had been made on "as is where is" basis therefore, respondent was not obliged to meet the description of rice given in the contract---Suit was partly decreed by trial Court, however, plea of specific performance and claim of damages was disallowed---Suit of appellant was dismissed in its entirety by the appellate Court---Validity---Appellant proved his case by producing oral as well as documentary evidence on record---Onus to prone the issue that suit was not instituted by duly authorized person has placed on respondent but it did not produce any evidence td discharge this onus-- Appellant made repeated offers to .respondent for joint inspection and survey of contracted rice with the object of substantiating its contention that rice made available by the latter was not Basmati Special Rice but such offers were not: accepted by respondent---Words `Basmati Special Rice' had been used as many as six times in the contract document leaning no room for doubt that contracted rice was being sold by description---Term "as is where is" had been used only in relation to delivery of the rice and it did not in any manner absolve the respondent from its obligation to supply the agreed quality of rice---Principle of contra proferentum was not applicable in the case as there was no ambiguity which made it difficult to ascertain the intention" of contracting parties---Meaning of term "as is where is" would have been determined on the basis of the context in which the term was used---Section 16(2)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register