1936 (3) TMI 13 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules on excess supplies in contract dispute, dismisses claim for damages.

(Firm) Kesla Mal Nand Kishore Versus Cooper Allen and Co.

The Court held that the excess supplies over the monthly quota should count towards the total of 41,000 maunds, as per the contract terms and oral ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the excess supplies over the monthly quota should count towards the total of 41,000 maunds.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the resale of 8,000 maunds of bark at Ambala instead of delivering them to Cawnpore.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the excess supplies over the monthly quota should count towards the total of 41,000 maunds:The plaintiff, a firm from Ambala, entered into a contract with the defendant, a firm of tanners in Cawnpore, to supply 41,000 maunds of babul bark. The dispute arose around whether the excess supplies over the monthly quota should be included in the total of 41,000 maunds. The plaintiff argued that the excess supplies should not count towards the total, while the defendant contended otherwise.The Court examined the contract which stated, 'You agree to supply us with 41,000 (forty-one thousand) maunds good dry chopped Babul Bark...at the rate of six panseries per rupee.' The Court noted that the contract was somewhat ambiguously worded, particularly the clause about excess supplies which stated, 'we reserve the right to cancel the balance remaining undelivered during any one month or accept same and also any supplies in excess of the monthly quota at the purchase price fixed by us from time to time for local purchases.'The Court found that the contract did not explicitly state whether the excess supplies should count towards the total of 41,000 maunds. However, the Court considered oral evidence under Section 92, proviso (2), of the Evidence Act, which allows for the proof of any separate oral agreement on matters where the document is silent. Mr. A.C. Inskip, the assistant manager of the defendant firm, testified that the understanding was that 41,000 maunds was the total quantity to be supplied and any excess in any month should be included in this total. The plaintiff's representative, Nand Kishore, did not appear to contradict this evidence.The Court concluded that the excess supplies were indeed part of the total 41,000 maunds, contrary to the plaintiff's claim. The Court held that the defendant had fulfilled his part of the contract by accepting a total of 41,468 maunds, which included the excess supplies.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the resale of 8,000 maunds of bark at Ambala instead of delivering them to Cawnpore:The plaintiff claimed damages for 8,000 maunds of bark, which he had to sell at Ambala for Rs. 1,000 after the defendant refused to accept them. The plaintiff argued that the contractual rate for these 8,000 maunds was Rs. 10,666 and sought damages accordingly.The Court below dismissed this claim, stating that the plaintiff should have either delivered the 8,000 maunds to Cawnpore and sold them there or proved the prevalent rate at Cawnpore in May 1931. The Court found that the plaintiff did neither and thus could not recover damages for the resale at Ambala.Upon appeal, the plaintiff argued that the rate of twenty panseries per rupee should have been applied, which would have given a figure of Rs. 3,200, and sought the difference as damages. However, the Court held that since the defendant had already accepted 41,000 maunds, there was no contractual obligation to accept the additional 8,000 maunds. The Court found that the plaintiff was attempting to send 8,000 maunds for which there was no contract, and thus he could not claim damages for non-acceptance.The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the defendant had complied with the contract by accepting 41,000 maunds and the plaintiff was not entitled to any further damages. The first appeal was dismissed with costs.