Concluded contract requirement defeats damages claim where payment and delivery terms were never agreed.

No concluded contract for sale of sugar was proved because the tender did not fix the time for payment or delivery and there was no documentary evidence of agreed terms. The plaintiff could not unilaterally make time the essence of the contract by fixing payment and delivery deadlines on its own, so non-payment within that self-imposed period did not amount to breach by the defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff treated the goods as its own and resold them without notice, which was inconsistent with its case that a binding contract had been concluded and breached. The suit for damages was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contract for sale of sugar was concluded so as to entitle the plaintiff to claim damages for breach.

Analysis: The tender did not specify the time for payment or delivery, and there was no documentary proof of any concluded agreement fixing those terms. The plaintiff's unilateral fixation of time for payment and delivery could not make time the essence of the contract in the absence of a contractual stipulation. In such circumstances, the plaintiff could not treat non-payment within the unilaterally fixed time as a breach by the defendant. The Court also noticed that, on the materials, the plaintiff itself had treated the goods as its own and resold them without notice, which was inconsistent with its case that the contract had been concluded and breached by the defendant.

Conclusion: The suit for damages was not maintainable, as no concluded contract proved breach by the defendant and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the claimed amount.

---