TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court Awards Damages for Breach of Implied Warranty Despite No Express Terms; Adjusts for Counter-Claim Repairs.</h1> <h3>Hurbut John Amies Versus Jal P. Virji</h3> The court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 1,600 for breach of an implied warranty that the car was serviceable, despite the absence of an express warranty in ... - Issues:- Contract for the sale of a motor car- Express and implied warranties- Breach of warranty and damages- Amount of brokerage due- Defendant's refusal to return the car for repairs- Defendant's counter-claim for repairs and balance of priceAnalysis:The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for damages arising from a contract for the sale of a motor car. The contract stipulated monthly installments and special conditions, including punctual payment, seller's right to inspect the car, prohibition on car disposal before full payment, and car insurance. Initially, it was believed that property passed to the plaintiff upon delivery of the car. However, upon reconsideration, it was concluded that the intention of the parties, as expressed in the contract conditions, was that the property in the car should not pass until full payment. This interpretation prevailed despite the provisions of Section 78 of the Indian Contract Act.Regarding the warranties, the plaintiff claimed an express warranty that the car was new and in perfect working order, which was not supported by the written agreement. However, an implied warranty that the car was serviceable was acknowledged. The plaintiff's evidence highlighted various issues with the car, including engine troubles, carburetor issues, and other defects, which were corroborated by documentary evidence and lack of counter-evidence from the defendant.The judgment assessed the damages and liabilities of both parties. The plaintiff was awarded damages of Rs. 1,600 for the breach of warranty, while the defendant was granted Rs. 1,467 on the counter-claim for repairs and balance of price. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on certain issues, such as breach of warranty, while ruling in favor of the defendant on others, like the right to determine the contract due to default in installments. The final decree allocated specific amounts for damages and repairs, considering the evidence presented and the contractual obligations of both parties.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues surrounding the sale contract of the motor car, including warranties, breaches, damages, and liabilities. The detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles led to a balanced decision that upheld the contractual rights and obligations of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
