Carrier delivery and price control: no buyer delivery, no restitution under section 65, and no partial recovery under section 72.

Delivery to a carrier did not amount to delivery to the buyer where the railway receipt named the seller as consignee, so the Government price order continued to apply. The contract then became void when the supervening price control made performance unlawful, but restitution under section 65 was unavailable because that provision covers advantages received before a contract becomes void, not amounts received after enforceability has ceased. Section 72 could extend to mistake of law as well as fact, yet it did not permit selective recovery of part of a contractual payment as a severable excess on these facts. The claim therefore failed and the dismissal of the suit was sustained with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delivery to the railway company amounted to delivery to the buyer so as to exclude the application of the Government price order. (ii) Whether the contract became void under the Contract Act on account of the supervening Government order fixing a maximum price and, if so, whether restitution was available under section 65. (iii) Whether the amount claimed was recoverable as money paid under mistake under section 72 of the Contract Act.

Issue (i): Whether delivery to the railway company amounted to delivery to the buyer so as to exclude the application of the Government price order.

Analysis: Delivery to a carrier may prima facie amount to delivery to the buyer where the goods are sent for transmission to the buyer. That presumption does not operate where the railway receipt names the seller as consignee and the goods are being transmitted to the seller rather than to the buyer. The mere loading of the goods on the railway wagons did not amount to delivery to the buyer in those circumstances.

Conclusion: Delivery was not made to the buyer on the date of loading, and the Government order applied to the transaction.

Issue (ii): Whether the contract became void under the Contract Act on account of the supervening Government order fixing a maximum price and, if so, whether restitution was available under section 65.

Analysis: A contract becomes void when its main term is rendered unlawful by a supervening event and performance would involve infringement of the law. Section 65 applies to an advantage received under a contract before it becomes void, not to money paid after the agreement has ceased to be enforceable. The advantage in this case was received after the contract had become void, so section 65 did not assist the claimant.

Conclusion: The contract became void, but section 65 did not entitle the claimant to restitution.

Issue (iii): Whether the amount claimed was recoverable as money paid under mistake under section 72 of the Contract Act.

Analysis: Section 72 is not confined to mistake of fact and may extend to mistake of law as well. Even so, the claimant could not split the contractual payment and recover only the difference between the contract price and the controlled price. The payment claimed was part of a contractual payment which, on the facts, could not be treated as a severable mistaken excess recoverable under section 72 in the manner sought.

Conclusion: The claim was not recoverable under section 72.

Final Conclusion: The claimant failed on all substantive grounds, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Delivery to a carrier is not delivery to the buyer where the carrier is directed to deliver to the seller as consignee; section 65 applies only to advantages received before the contract becomes void; and section 72 does not permit selective recovery of part of a contractual payment in the manner claimed.

---