KAMAL KHAN versus GULMAT KHAN
Article 103 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 74 liquid damages that were intended to be excluded in the contract to sell the property, such error was proved by oral evidence that the sale of a particular property Was agreed upon which the parties could issue to a document. Through other evidence, indicate that no complete transaction was represented in the writings they executed. Anecdotal evidence is justified to determine the effect of a device where there were doubts as to its true meaning. The conduct of the parties was admissible where a document was improperly prepared or one of them has a doubt about its true meaning in the clauses which, based on oral evidence, the courts below have correctly Decided that the defendant was guilty of breach of contract and paid a unanimous sum as compensation for such infringement. Who was responsible.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
when you need a advocate from Timergara lawyer
