Section 70 claim for accepted goods upheld where lawful delivery, non-gratuitous intent and benefit were established.

A claim under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act requires pleading and proof of three essentials: lawful doing of the act or lawful delivery of goods, absence of gratuitous intention, and enjoyment of the benefit by the recipient. A plaint that omits the lawful delivery and benefit elements is deficient, though such defect may not justify non-suiting a party at the appellate stage where the matter has already been tried on that footing. On the facts found, the appellant accepted and retained the goods, so the matter was not one of rejected goods or non-acceptance under an enforceable contract. Compensation under section 70 was therefore payable, and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claim under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act could be sustained in the absence of pleadings of all its essential ingredients. (ii) Whether, on the facts found, the appellant was liable to compensate for the goods accepted and retained.

Issue (i): The statutory basis of liability under section 70 requires pleading and proof of three elements: lawful doing of an act or lawful delivery of goods, absence of gratuitous intention, and enjoyment of the benefit by the recipient. A plaint that asserts only that the goods were not supplied gratuitously, without pleading lawful delivery and enjoyment of benefit, does not fully disclose the cause of action. The suit should not ordinarily proceed on a deficient foundation, although the Court may avoid non-suiting a party at a late stage where the matter has already been tried and decided on that footing.

Conclusion: The claim was not properly pleaded to support section 70, but the defect did not warrant non-suiting the respondent at the appellate stage.

Issue (ii): The findings accepted that the goods were accepted by the appellant and that the purported rejection was ineffective. Once acceptance of the goods was found, the case could not be treated as one of restoration after rejection, nor as a claim for damages for non-acceptance on an enforceable contract. On the facts found, the appellant had the benefit of the goods and was bound to make compensation under section 70.

Conclusion: Liability to compensate for the value of the accepted goods was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree in favour of the respondent for compensation, with the order as to costs, was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act depends on pleading and proof of lawful delivery or lawful doing of the act, non-gratuitous intention, and enjoyment of benefit; where the recipient has accepted and benefited from the goods, compensation is payable despite absence of an enforceable contract.

---