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.
---S. 73 Breach of contract Damages Respondents admitting to supply goods up top time extended by applicant On breach of contract applicant held entitled to damages calculated at market price prevailing on date up to which time extended.
Muhammad Jamil v. A.M. Wazir Ali PLD 1959 Kar 472 ref.
A Sattar Memon for Applicant
Amjad Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th May 1982.
This Revision is directed against the judgment of Small Causes Court dated 13 th March, 1982 decreeing the suit of the applicant/plaintiff for Rs. 1,625 with proportionate cost.
The only point argued by the learned counsel for the applicant before me relates to the date of breach of contract. It is an admitted position that the last date for performance the contract was 31st December, 1969. It is however the case of applicant plaintiff that the date of delivery was exterided upto 5th January, 1970. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the extension of date of delivery up to 5th January, 1970 was unilateral and the respondent never consented to it from the evidence on record it appears that after the above mentioned date of performance had passed the applicant wrote to respondent to give delivery of the goods contracted up to 5th of January, 1970. The respondent in reply to the above letter of applicant stated that they are willing to give delivery of goods as soon as they received the goods from M.A. Company from whom the respondent in turn had contracted to purchase these goods. This admission of respondent goes to show that they did not refuse to perform the contract for which the last date of performance was fixed as 31st December, 1969. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that this admission of respondent amounted to extension of the date of delivery and in support of his contention referred to the case of Muhammad Jamil v. A.M. Wazir Ali (1) The contention of the learned counsel finds support from the above case. I therefore hold that the delivery period was extended up to 5th January, 1970
and, therefore, the applicant was entitled to the damages calculated at the market price prevailing on 5th January, 1970. The trial court awarded damages according to the difference between the contractual rate and the rate prevailing on 31st January, 1969. The contracted rate for the goods was Rs. 89 per maund. The evidence on record shows that on 5th January, 1970 the market rate of the goods was between Rs. 106 and 107 per maund. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the practice prevailing in the market in case of breach of contract the damages were calculated at the market rate reduced by Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 per maund. Taking the lowest of the market rate on 5th January, 1970 and deducting therefrom a sum of Rs. 3 per maund, the market price of the goods on 5th January, 1970 comes to Rs. 103 per maund. The difference between the contractual price at the market rate makes out to Rs. 14 per maund. The total damages will accordingly come to Rs. 1, 750. The respondent had also taken a surety deposit of Rs. 625 at the time of contract which .the applicant is entitled to claim. I, therefore, modify the decree of the trial Court and decree the Suit of applicant in a sum of Rs. 2,375 with propor tionate cost of stamp duty paid on the plaint. There will be no further order as to costs.
M. Y. H. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer