https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292030 Where a supply contract fixed a total quantity and monthly instalments but was silent on whether excess monthly deliveries counted toward that total, oral evidence was admissible under Section 92, proviso (2), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove a separate consistent oral understanding. The evidence accepted in the text showed that the parties treated 41,000 maunds as the maximum quantity and included excess monthly supplies within that limit. On that construction, the contractual quantity had already been fully received before the disputed later deliveries, leaving no subsisting contract for the remaining goods and defeating a claim for damages for non-acceptance. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:43:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292030 Where a supply contract fixed a total quantity and monthly instalments but was silent on whether excess monthly deliveries counted toward that total, oral evidence was admissible under Section 92, proviso (2), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove a separate consistent oral understanding. The evidence accepted in the text showed that the parties treated 41,000 maunds as the maximum quantity and included excess monthly supplies within that limit. On that construction, the contractual quantity had already been fully received before the disputed later deliveries, leaving no subsisting contract for the remaining goods and defeating a claim for damages for non-acceptance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292030