Contract performance and damages: buyer cannot claim for self-induced non-performance, but seller remains liable for undelivered goods.

Where contracts for sale of goods fixed no time for performance, the parties' conduct governed reasonable performance. The buyer, having repeatedly postponed despatch and refused to accept liability for increased excise duty that could lawfully be added to the price, could not claim damages for non-performance to the extent his own conduct prevented completion. However, the seller remained liable for breach in relation to the three wagons it had specifically agreed to despatch but failed to supply. Damages for that limited breach were measured by the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of breach, so recovery was confined to the undelivered three wagons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the buyer could claim damages for non-performance of the contracts when he had repeatedly postponed despatch and had refused to accept liability for increased excise duty. (ii) Whether the seller was liable in damages for non-supply of the three wagons ultimately found to be remaining under the subsisting contracts.

Issue (i): Whether the buyer could claim damages for non-performance of the contracts when he had repeatedly postponed despatch and had refused to accept liability for increased excise duty.

Analysis: The contracts for sale of goods contained no fixed time for performance, so performance had to be worked out in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the parties' conduct. The buyer had repeatedly instructed the seller not to despatch or to stop despatches and had only later sought to treat the seller as in breach. The buyer also repudiated liability to bear the increased excise duty, although under the statutory scheme the seller was entitled to add the increased levy to the contract price and payment of price and delivery of goods were concurrent conditions.

Conclusion: The buyer was not entitled to damages for the unperformed balance of the contracts to the extent his own conduct and refusal to pay the enhanced price prevented performance.

Issue (ii): Whether the seller was liable in damages for non-supply of the three wagons ultimately found to be remaining under the subsisting contracts.

Analysis: On the correspondence, the seller had agreed to despatch three wagons and had not raised the excise-duty objection as a shield against that specific performance. The failure to supply those three wagons constituted a breach, and damages were therefore recoverable only to that limited extent. The correct measure was the difference between the contract rate and the market rate prevailing at the time of breach.

Conclusion: The seller was liable only for damages arising from non-supply of three wagons, and not for the larger claim.

Final Conclusion: The decree was reduced to damages for only the three wagons proved to have remained undelivered, and the appeal succeeded to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer who prevents or postpones performance and repudiates payment of a statutorily recoverable price component cannot claim damages for non-performance of the contract, while damages remain recoverable only for the specific quantity the seller had agreed to supply but failed to deliver.

---