https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198337 The Supreme Court accepted that Babulal acted as the agent of the appellant. Regarding the impossibility of contract performance, the High Court disagreed with the trial court's finding. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into this issue, focusing instead on damages. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to prove the market rate of canvas in Kanpur on the breach date, thus not entitled to damages. The appeal was allowed, the High Court decree was set aside, and the trial court judgment was restored, dismissing the respondent's claim for damages. Costs were awarded to the appellant. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:09:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198337 The Supreme Court accepted that Babulal acted as the agent of the appellant. Regarding the impossibility of contract performance, the High Court disagreed with the trial court's finding. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into this issue, focusing instead on damages. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to prove the market rate of canvas in Kanpur on the breach date, thus not entitled to damages. The appeal was allowed, the High Court decree was set aside, and the trial court judgment was restored, dismissing the respondent's claim for damages. Costs were awarded to the appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198337