https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287294 No concluded contract for sale of sugar was proved because the tender did not fix the time for payment or delivery and there was no documentary evidence of agreed terms. The plaintiff could not unilaterally make time the essence of the contract by fixing payment and delivery deadlines on its own, so non-payment within that self-imposed period did not amount to breach by the defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff treated the goods as its own and resold them without notice, which was inconsistent with its case that a binding contract had been concluded and breached. The suit for damages was therefore not maintainable. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2020 12:39:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287294 No concluded contract for sale of sugar was proved because the tender did not fix the time for payment or delivery and there was no documentary evidence of agreed terms. The plaintiff could not unilaterally make time the essence of the contract by fixing payment and delivery deadlines on its own, so non-payment within that self-imposed period did not amount to breach by the defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff treated the goods as its own and resold them without notice, which was inconsistent with its case that a binding contract had been concluded and breached. The suit for damages was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287294