https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197531 A contractual clause governing default and substitute procurement was treated as displacing the ordinary damages measure under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, because section 62 of the Sale of Goods Act allowed the parties to vary the remedy by agreement. The claim for compensation also failed on facts because the appellants did not prove actual loss, additional expenditure, or recoverable quantum. Further, Clause 14(ii) required actual purchase of the short-supplied goods after termination, and no such substitute purchase was made. The arbitral awards and challenge order were therefore sustained, and the non-supply compensation claims were rejected. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:09:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197531 A contractual clause governing default and substitute procurement was treated as displacing the ordinary damages measure under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, because section 62 of the Sale of Goods Act allowed the parties to vary the remedy by agreement. The claim for compensation also failed on facts because the appellants did not prove actual loss, additional expenditure, or recoverable quantum. Further, Clause 14(ii) required actual purchase of the short-supplied goods after termination, and no such substitute purchase was made. The arbitral awards and challenge order were therefore sustained, and the non-supply compensation claims were rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197531