Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Suit No. 218 of 1969, decided on 12th May 1975.
---S. 73‑--Breach of contract‑Damages, measure of: difference between contract price and market price prevailing on date of breach --Repudiation of contract of sale before date of delivery‑Measure of damages is difference between contract price and market price prevailing on due date of delivery‑Evidence of market rate in other far off markets‑Not relevant‑Seller to mitigate loss by disposing of goods in smaller quantities if no customer forthcoming to purchase goods in bulk--‑In suit for damages for breach of contract plaintiff must give credit for amount deposited as earnest money and forfeited by him.
The rule applicable to the, computation of damages, where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, is now well- established. It is that where there is an available market for the goods in question, the measure of damages, in general, is the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing on the date of breach of the contract.
Jamal v. Moolla Dawood Sons & Company L R 43 1 A 6 ; Erroll Mackey v. Maharaja Dhiraj Kameshwar Singh and another A I R 1932 P C 196 and Province of West Pakistan v. Messrs Saaz & Co. P L D 1964 S C 625 ref.
Section 60 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 states that where either party to a contract of sale repudiates the contract before the date of delivery, the other party may either treat the contract as subsisting and wait till the date of delivery, or be may treat the contract as rescinded and sue for damages for the breach. In either case, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price prevailing on the due date of delivery. The measure of damages is not affected by the date of the buyer's repudiation and is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the day when the goods ought to have been accepted.
Pollack and Mulla on The Indian Contract Act, 1872, 8th Edn., 1957, p. 302 ; Frost v. Knight (1872) L R 7 Ex. 111 and Benjamin's Sale of Goods, 1974, p. 1237 ref.
In ascertaining market‑price evidence of sales in other far off markets is not relevant.
In a suit for damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff must give credit for the amount of deposit forfeited by him.
M. D. Raman v. R. M. Nagu Mudaliar A I R 1937 Rang. 357 ; Trikamji Jivandas & Co. v. The Trustees of the Port Trust of Karachi 36 '1 C 96 ; Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swaran A I R 1926 P C 1 and Province of West Pakistan v. Messrs Mistri Patel & Co. and another P L D 1969 S C 80 ref.
----Ss. 20 & 120(1)‑Suit‑Place of suing‑Part of cause of action arising within jurisdiction of High Court‑High Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit despite defendants' residence being outside its jurisdiction.
West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Messrs Fateh Textile Mills Ltd. P L D 1964 Kar. 11 and Dr. Muhammad Shabbir Khan v. Messrs Abu Dhabi Petroleum Co. Ltd., Karachi P L D 1975 Kar. 133 distinguished.
Nasir Shahmir for Plaintiff.
Nalmuddin for Defendant.
Dates of hearing : 22nd, 23rd and 24th April 1975.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer