https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279277 The appeal from the High Court's dismissal of the suit for damages for non-delivery of goods was denied. The Court found that the appellants had effectively repudiated their obligation under the contract by refusing goods in a different form than agreed upon, leading to a valid termination of the contract under Sections 39 and 63 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondents were dispensed from performance, and the appellants could not claim damages for a breach they had essentially waived. The importance of upholding contractual obligations was highlighted, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:53:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279277 The appeal from the High Court's dismissal of the suit for damages for non-delivery of goods was denied. The Court found that the appellants had effectively repudiated their obligation under the contract by refusing goods in a different form than agreed upon, leading to a valid termination of the contract under Sections 39 and 63 of the Indian Contract Act. The respondents were dispensed from performance, and the appellants could not claim damages for a breach they had essentially waived. The importance of upholding contractual obligations was highlighted, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279277