TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over Tin Supply Contract: Sellers' Breach Confirmed</h1> The case involved a dispute over a contract for the supply of tin, with the buyers alleging that the sellers wrongfully repudiated the contract. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Breach of contract for the supply of tin.2. Implied terms of the contract.3. Impossibility of performance due to unforeseen events.Detailed Analysis:1. Breach of Contract for the Supply of Tin:The case revolves around a breach of contract for the supply of tin between the respondent company (buyers) and the appellant firm (sellers). On December 8, 1941, a contract was made between the parties for the supply of 40 tons of Penang quality tin at specified rates. The buyers alleged that the sellers wrongfully repudiated the contract on December 22, 1941, and claimed damages for the breach. The sellers contended that the contract was contingent upon the arrival of tin from Penang, which became impossible due to the Japanese occupation of Penang.2. Implied Terms of the Contract:The sellers argued that it was an implied term of the contract that delivery would only be made as and when the goods arrived from Penang. This contention was abandoned by the sellers' counsel during the appeal, who accepted the trial judge's findings of fact and argued that the contract's fulfilment was contingent upon the arrival of the tin from Penang. The trial judge, McNair J., found that the oral evidence of both parties regarding the express terms of the contract was unreliable and that the only reliable record of the contract was the letter dated December 8, 1941. The trial judge construed the letter and held that the contract became impossible of performance due to the non-arrival of tin from Penang.3. Impossibility of Performance Due to Unforeseen Events:The appellate court, however, disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion. The Chief Justice, with whom Lodge J. agreed, held that the contract was for the purchase and sale of 40 tons of Penang tin as set out in the buyers' letter of December 8, 1941, and that its fulfilment was not contingent upon the arrival of the tin from Penang. The appellate court concluded that the contract was broken by the sellers on December 22, 1941, and that damages should be computed as of that date. The Privy Council upheld the appellate court's decision, stating that the term that delivery was contingent upon the arrival of tin from Penang could not be implied. The court found no reliable evidence that the buyers knew or cared whether the tin would be supplied from a consignment already ordered by the sellers from Penang. The court also noted that the sellers had the option to supplement their stocks by buying tin in Calcutta. The court concluded that the sellers failed to prove that the contract became impossible to perform due to the Japanese occupation of Penang, as they did not make any effort to deliver the 40 tons of tin after the occupation.Conclusion:The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the appellate court's judgment that the contract was not contingent upon the arrival of tin from Penang and that the sellers breached the contract on December 22, 1941. The sellers were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
