Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Is Tolerance really Tolerance?

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tolerance really Tolerance?<br>By: - Madhusudan Mishra<br>Goods and Services Tax - GST<br>Dated:- 25-6-2024<br><br>For &quot;agreeing to the &#39;obligation&#39; to tolerate an act&quot;, one must have an option/right &quot;to not tolerate&quot;. When &quot;tolerance&quot; is default and you have no other option to choose from it cannot be said to be an &#39;obligation to tolerate&#39;. &quot;Ob....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ligation&quot; requires acceptance. Acceptance needs offer and lawful authority. When you have no authority, acceptance is for &quot;what&quot;? Tolerance requires relinquishment. It cannot be assumed (especially not as opportunity cost per se). If opportunity cost is tolerance then every other contract is &quot;to tolerate an act&quot;. Damages are not for tolerance. They are due to breach. Brea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch is of a condition and a condition cannot be a consideration. But damages can have &#39;colour&#39; of consideration on perusal. Every damage is not compensation and compensation is not consideration. Anyone who enters into a legal arrangement runs the risk of a breach of contract. Acceptance makes the &#39;breach&#39; default leaving no way to forfend. Have you ever heard of a &quot;right&quot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; to &quot;rectify&quot; a breach? If not, then with which authority one would accept &quot;not to rectify&quot; but &quot;to tolerate&quot; (Reactive Tolerance)? &quot;to tolerate&quot; is the ONLY option UNTIL &quot;not to tolerate&quot; is an available option (Proactive Tolerance). Penalty cannot be a consideration. Consideration flows from recipient to supplier and not vice versa. Once breach....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, roles are reversed. Breaching party is a &#39;penalty&#39; payer (being recipient) who can&#39;t purchase the non-performance from the non-breaching party. What if there is a payment default by the &quot;Hawker&quot;? The &quot;Shopkeeper&quot; will exercise its legal right (previously waived) to remove the Hawker from the premises by no more &quot;tolerating&quot; (repudiating the proactive ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tolerance) its presence. One ought not to say that contracts are not entered for non-performance. It&#39;s the untrained mind. Reasonable is what depends on the context (see bolam&#39;s reasonability test). &quot;Pure damages&quot; declared when it&#39;s a supplier&#39;s breach. Such damages require congruence and perusal.<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onals ....