https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184182 A contract may be inferred from conduct where goods are supplied on the supplier's own account, accepted by the buyer, partly paid for, and followed by repeated demands for payment; the buyer was therefore liable for the unpaid price despite initial dealings involving a third person. An appellate amendment that would introduce an entirely new defence and change the nature of the case was properly refused, and additional evidence sought only to support that new plea was also rejected. The decree for the supplier was maintained because the transaction created a binding liability and no procedural basis existed to reopen the defence. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 14:54:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184182 A contract may be inferred from conduct where goods are supplied on the supplier's own account, accepted by the buyer, partly paid for, and followed by repeated demands for payment; the buyer was therefore liable for the unpaid price despite initial dealings involving a third person. An appellate amendment that would introduce an entirely new defence and change the nature of the case was properly refused, and additional evidence sought only to support that new plea was also rejected. The decree for the supplier was maintained because the transaction created a binding liability and no procedural basis existed to reopen the defence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184182