S. M. ABDULLAH & SONS versus BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
Section 2 (h) of the Contract Act, 1862, the plaintiff's corporation agreed to sell the contract, and the plaintiff agreed to buy part of the contractual goods provided to the plaintiff, while the rest of the contract rod refused to supply it. Evidence for recovering the difference between the contract price and the cotton price on lime for breach of contract shows that the defendant was acting on behalf of the corporation and the contractor said It has the power to enter. The fact of the agreement was that some part of the goods were supplied to the claimant beyond the contracted quantity, thus supporting the existence of the contract as such, there was sufficient documentation to show the existence of such agreement. Provided that such agreement was not formally terminated in writing, the legality of the agreement will not be revoked
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
