NAMA LIKA SILK INDUSTRIES versus ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE
Failure to deliver the contract date for the defendant (car dealer) for damages for non-performance of sections 55 and 62 contract until 21 5 1999 when it received some payment on 29 5 1999 and 20 12 1999 The defendant's request was that the plaintiff's full sales price for the car payable in advance was not paid within four days of June 17, 1999, therefore, the essence of the contract would have been to delay the delivery of the car. This way the part payment was not denied by the defendant. Defendant's request was valid, then he refused to receive partial or full payment from the plaintiff after 21 5 1999 presented by the plaintiff in the evidence, which shows that the defendant had given the plaintiff They have been assuring the delivery of the vehicle and demanding a balance price. If the contract was in force at that time, the defendant would have returned some of the compensation to the plaintiff for breach of the contract or gave him notice to cancel the contract. CH Ground defendant accepted the payment of part and after 5 1999 Not only was the right to demand a full payment before the balance demanded, but in such agreements the original contract was extended by the claimant to pay the balance, not the obligation. When the rights of the parties are exhausted under the original agreement, you later give way to different rights under the agreement. The claimant was entitled to a defendant's failure to pay its part of the agreement was the return of the amount paid and the claimant was ordered damages suit in the \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
