Contract construction and oral evidence: excess monthly supply counted toward the total quantity under a consistent oral understanding.

Where a supply contract fixed a total quantity and monthly instalments but was silent on whether excess monthly deliveries counted toward that total, oral evidence was admissible under Section 92, proviso (2), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove a separate consistent oral understanding. The evidence accepted in the text showed that the parties treated 41,000 maunds as the maximum quantity and included excess monthly supplies within that limit. On that construction, the contractual quantity had already been fully received before the disputed later deliveries, leaving no subsisting contract for the remaining goods and defeating a claim for damages for non-acceptance.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the proper construction of the contract and in the light of admissible oral evidence, the excess quantity of bark supplied in a month was to be counted towards the total contractual quantity of 41,000 maunds, and whether damages were recoverable for the alleged non-acceptance of 8,000 maunds said to remain undelivered.

Analysis: The contract fixed 41,000 maunds as the total quantity and laid down monthly instalments, but it was silent on whether excess supplies over the monthly quota would or would not count towards that total. The Court held that, because the document was not highly formal and contained no express term on that point, oral evidence was admissible under Section 92, proviso (2), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove a separate consistent oral understanding. The evidence of the defendant's assistant manager was accepted as establishing that the parties had agreed that 41,000 maunds was the maximum quantity and that excess supplies in any month would be included in that total. On that construction, the defendant had already received the full contractual quantity before the disputed May and June deliveries, so the plaintiff was attempting to send goods for which there was no subsisting contract.

Conclusion: The claim for damages for non-acceptance of the 8,000 maunds failed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---