DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IN INDIAN

CONTRACT: SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL

AND LEGISLATIVE TREND

SUBMITED BY-

SUBMITED TO:-

1
 PREFACE

I feel great pleasure in presenting this term paper entitled: “DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT IN INDIAN CONTRACT: SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO THE JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE TREND” under study. I hope that the
readers will find this paper interesting and that the paper in its present form
shall be well received by all. The paper contains the detailed analysis regarding
the laws and precedent made in relation to contract act.

Every effort is made to keep the paper error free. I would gratefully
acknowledge the suggestions to improve the paper so as to make it more useful.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On successful completion of this project, we would like to thank you …… for

helping us with the research and always attending our doubts and queries
regarding the same. I sincerely thank him for all the support and
encouragement without which the completion of this project could have not
been possible.

I would like to convey our gratitude towards our friends and batch mates who
have rendered us their valuable time and without their help this project would
have not been in its present shape and form. No work is complete with solo
endeavor, neither is ours. I thank each and every non-teaching staff of UPES
for their unconditional support and infinitum. I would also like to convey our
thanks to the Library Staff .

I am grateful to Almighty, who has given us enough strength and blessings to

work hard and make it to best of our ability. Last but not the least: I would also
like to thank our parents who have given us the chance to study in this esteemed
University a haven for legal edification.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTS - CONCEPTUAL AND LEGAL

FRAMEWORK

3. FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES

4. CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS: A SPECIAL REFERENCE

TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND PENALTY

5. DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT AND DOCTRINE OF UNJUST

ENRICHMENT: AN OVERVIEW

6. CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS

7. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

4
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION
Contracts are a common occurrence in people's daily lives all across the world. These are the
most common type of civil transaction, as well as the most common basis for the formation
of civil duties. At least one of the parties is bound by the terms of any contract. Only one of
the parties is bound by a unilateral contract. Obligations are imposed on both parties in the
more usual scenario of a bilateral contract. The following are some of the fundamental
characteristics of contractual liability: - It is used in the event of a breach of a valid contract;
its contents are related to the execution of contractual obligations or property liability; it is
used by authorised agencies or organisations (courts, arbitrators) or by the aggrieved party in
accordance with legal laws.

Contracts are typically entered into with the intention of carrying out the terms of the
agreement and increasing the asset base of both parties. However, due to a breach by one of
the parties, all contracts do not follow their intended path.1

THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGES

The existence of practical necessities on the legal structure bequeathed by history, rather than
inferences from a typical theory, is what gives rise to contract law. Lawyers, jurists, judges,
and academicians' perspectives evolve in response to changing societal requirements, and
every legal system contains legacies from the past that contradict with present viewpoints. It
is not only vital, but also very valuable, to understand the ideas that underpin the concept of
damages in contract law, yet no single system of law can be expected to have a consistent
approach. Professor Friedman has identified many significant causes that are causing changes
in the purpose and substance of contracts, resulting in a growing gap between legal reality
and the old textbook approach.2
1
Gulab Chandra SarkarSastry, “Hindu Law”, And Books of Narada and others. (1897). 8 Ch.I, at.pp 42, 43;
H.C. Ghose, “Principles of Hindu Law”, ed.1st (1905)
2
Professor JuliusJolly‟s “Hindu Law and Custom” translated by BalakrishnaGhose,(1928), Ch.I, Art. I, at.p.1.In
this volume Prof. Jolly discussed family law and heirship, law of things and obligations, offences and penalties,
court procedure and customs and traditions.

5
One of these issues is the growing urbanisation and standardisation of life, which has a direct
impact on industry and business concentration.

In the industrial society, the second element is the rising substitution of collective bargaining.
Its legal ramifications are the collective bargaining agreements between management and
labour.

The third factor is the state's massive expansion of welfare and social service functions in all
common law jurisdictions, which has two effects: on the one hand, the statutory terms of
contracts are increasing, or substituting for, or adding to the terms agreed between the parties
to the contract; on the other hand, the statutory terms of contracts are substituting for, or
adding to the terms agreed between the parties to the contract. The number of contracts
between government departments or public bodies and private companies, on the other hand,
is steadily increasing. The impact of this side on contract law has yet to be fully explored, but
it is significant.3

Finally, the spread of political, economic, and social catastrophes such as war, revolution, and
inflation influenced the development of contract breach remedies. Its direct legal
consequence is the notion of contract frustration, which has subsequently expanded the
variety of lawful justifications for contract non-performance. As a result, each of these
advances has a different impact on contract theory and practise. There is a need to design a
systematic legislation of damages for contract breaches.

A dynamic society like ours, which is engaged in the adventure of creating based on
confidence in the value system of political, social, and economic fairness, must revise the
law. The law is constantly dynamic in nature, and it is always subject to change. There is no
such thing as a static situation. The idea or purpose of developing a systematic law of
damages for breach of contract is that personal or public relations must be such that they can
aid in the stabilisation and advancement of society. Harmonized and progressive attitudes are
necessary for any society's solid framework. It can be stable but not static; it can be steady
but not static.4

3
Kourides, P. Nicholas “Influence of Islamic Law on Contemporary Middle Eastern Legal Systems: The
Formation and Binding Force of Contracts”, (1970), Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
4
Otto, Jan Michiel, Sharia Incorporated: “A Comparative Overview of the Legal Systems of Twelve Muslim
Countries in Past and Present”.

6
Actions for contract breaches are required. “In some books a distinction has been taken
between nonfeasance and malfeasance; thus on the one hand an action of covenant lies,
whereas on the other hand an action on the case lies,” said Spellman J. in Pickering v.
Spellman J. in Pickering v. Spellman J. in Pickering v. Spellman J. in Pickering v. Spellman
J. in Pickering v. Spellman If a carpenter covenants with me to build me a house for £100 and
fails to do so before the day assigned, depriving me of lodging, I shall have an action for this
nonfeasance just as well as if he had made it badly.” It's possible that the action is being taken
now to seek redress for a breach of any informal agreement. It was decided by a jury, and
compensatory damages were awarded. Two issues arose as a result of this new strategy,
which worried the courts in the sixteenth century.

The first issue was one of assumpsit's interaction with previous kinds of action, particularly
debt-related contracts.

The second issue was the development of a collection of theories that could categorically
determine which promises were actionable and which were not, as well as a doctrine that
could define the scope of promissory liability.

In some cases, a contractual duty can be enforced directly. This can be accomplished through
an action for the amount agreed upon by the parties, such as the price agreed upon for goods
or other performance, an order for specific performance of the obligation, or an injunction to
prevent the breach of a contract's negative stipulation or to require the defendant to take
positive steps to rectify a contract's breach.5

The claim for an agreed sum was a common law remedy, but particular performance and
injunctions were equitable remedies administered solely by the Court of Chancery. At
common law, a contract was regarded as a purely personal obligation, but equity would
sometimes regard a contract as conferring a proprietary interest on the person to whom
property was to be transferred, and even where this was not the case, would come to the
injured party's aid where damages would be insufficient redress. Particular remedies are not
subject to the same damages limitations as general remedies, such as the laws of remoteness
and mitigation, therefore a plaintiff may choose specific relief over general relief because the
latter may restrict the damages recovered. Damages in Torts and Damages in Contracts are
the two broad categories in which the subject of damages can be divided.

5
Gayle E. Hanlon, “International Business Negotiations in Saudi Arabia”, in James R Silkenat, Jeffrey M.
Aresty& Jacqueline Klosek eds., “The ABA Guide to International Business Negotiations”,

7
Other types of statutory damages can be found in welfare and social laws, such as the Fatal
Accidents Acts of 1855 and 1955, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, and compensation in the case of the Land Acquisition Acts of 2013, and
2014, among many others. 10 The term "damages" is defined as follows: The Indian Contract
Act of 1872 does not define the term "damages." However, it can be defined as a monetary
award made by the at-fault party to the injured party as compensation for loss or injury
caused by the defaulting party's breach of the contract's terms and conditions.

Despite the fact that there is no precise definition of the term "damages," certain jurists and
judges have attempted to define it in their decisions. Damages are the monetary compensation
that can be obtained through a successful lawsuit for a wrong that is either a tort or a breach
of contract. A contract is not a property, so the compensation might be in the form of a single
sum or computed according to defined standards. It's just a promise backed up by some sort
of consideration, with the option of either specified performance or damage as a remedy. A
party who has been harmed as a result of a contract breach might sue for damages.6

The term "damages" refers to monetary recompense for the loss incurred by the damaged
party. The wounded person bears the burden of proving his loss. The phrase "damages" refers
to the amount of money awarded or imposed by the law as monetary compensation,
reparation, or satisfaction for a harm suffered or a wrong committed as a result of a breach of
contract or a tortious act. The Gujarat High Court has given the word "damages" a very
simple meaning in the case of A.S. Sharma v. Union of India. Damages are simply a
monetary amount paid as remuneration for any loss or harm. The origins of the original law
of damages may be traced back to a long time ago, and understanding its origins can lead to
the best study of any subject in the world.

The definition supplied in the aforementioned ruling appears to be rather simple to

comprehend the complete notion, but it must be derived at such a level of simplicity that the
system, the framers of law, jurists, juries, decision-making authorities, and judges must
navigate hazardous roads. Damages are, in general, monetary compensation obtained through
a successful lawsuit for a wrong that is a violation of contract, with the compensation being
in the form of a lump amount granted at a single time. There are four types of circumstances
in which monetary satisfaction is obtained through the accomplishment of a goal that fall
outside the scope of the current definition.
6
David J. Carl, “Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia: What Foreign Attorneys Should Know”,George Washington
Journal of International Law and Economics: (1991–1992)

8
From Past to the Present: The Expansion of Expectation Damages

The Jaquith rule was observed for around 150 years. In Globe v. Landa, however, Justice
Holmes took a broader interpretation of the older common law concept of consequential
damages, holding that the parties must have established a "tacit understanding" that the
breacher would be liable for losses caused by unusual circumstances. However, as time went
on, the limitation on consequential damages came under increasing criticism. One source of
pressure was the rising complexity of expert testimony in determining with some specificity
the amount of lost earnings that would arise from a breach.

In the meantime, due to the expansion of commercial enterprise in the mid- to late-nineteenth
century, the concept of lost profits for a business buyer became more widely accepted, and
courts came to regard lost profit claims as a natural and direct result of a breach rather than as
a special circumstance requiring communication. Eventually, a "new-business rule" was
adopted, which barred the recovery of lost earnings in the case of a newly formed
corporation. The ability to show losses with reasonable confidence justified the recovery
under an expectation default because the denial of lost profits was based on allegations of
ambiguity.

It was both comprehensible and fair to award lost earnings as part of the anticipated damages.
However, an unintended effect of this development was a diminution in the parties' ability to
agree on damages. The loss of the tacit agreement rule for recovering consequential damages
resulted in yet another doctrinal shift. The tacit agreement test had been explicitly rejected by
the time the UCC was established in the 1950s, and a plaintiff was entitled to recover any
harm resulting from the precise criteria, with the important condition being that the seller
have cause to know at the time of contracting. When Article 2 of the UCC was uniformly
accepted, it completed the expansion of the expectation damages default.7

The constraints on recovering consequential damages had been eased, and the Code (unlike
its predecessor, the Uniform Sales Act) 93had allowed bulk sellers to claim lost profit. The
compensating principle has been elevated to an overarching norm and a fundamental
principle of interpretation by Section 1-106 of the Code. 94 Even in dense market situations,
these portions appear to override arguments for market damages. As a result, market damages
should not be applied when the judgement differs from the economic advantage the promise
would have received if the contract had been fulfilled. The courts have generally upheld

7
Duncan Kennedy, “Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication”.(1976) Harvard Law Review.

9
compensatory damage provisions and termination choices. As a result, commercial sellers
have adopted "repair and replacement" clauses as a limitation of remedy supply.8

Furthermore, both commercial and consumer buyers have traditionally enjoyed rights of
return and other compensation termination options. Alternative contracts were created as a
way to construct inserted options that would otherwise be subject to the penalty rule.
Contracts featuring "take or pay" or "play or pay" stipulations were commonly enforced by
the courts. At this point, it would be reasonable to conclude that the compensation principle
and the punishment rule have no practical implications. Non-refundable deposits or
prepayment of the contract amount, as well as franchise termination costs, are particularly
open to collateral assault in subsequent litigation. The oddities of the punitive bond and early
common law forms of action appear to have resulted in the coupling of a quasi-mandatory
compensation principle with both the penalty rule and the (recently formed) expansive default
of full expectation damages.

Despite historians' claims that these restrictions prohibit parties from establishing effective
contracts, they have proven to be very resilient. The expectation damages for breach of
contract had to put the injured party in the position she would have been in if the contract had
been completed, according to the fundamental rule of contract law. The courts have embraced
this entire performance compensation principle as the basic premise of the expectation
remedy, and as a result, the courts have devised numerous more precise formulas for various
types of cases. However, there are significant difficulties in putting this theory into practise.
The tendency of courts to determine contractual expectancy ex post (from factors that exist at
the time of performance) rather than ex ante is one of the less well-known of these issues
(from economic opportunities fixed at the moment of contract).

When there is no statutory law that applies to a case, a judge may turn to common law, and if
there is no precedent, he may turn to natural law, as Henry John Stephen explained: “When a
case is brought before a court, the first question which legitimately emerges from the facts is
whether there is any statute which provides for it.” If there are none, the question is whether
there are any clear rules of common law that fix the parties' rights and obligations. If the
response is again negative, the question arises as to whether there is any common law concept
that should govern by analogy or parity of reason.9
8
Kuran, Timur, “The Islamic Commercial Crisis: Institutional Roots of Economic Underdevelopment in the
Middle East”, The Journal of Economic History
9
Daniel J. Castellano, M.A,“Common Law and Civil Jurisprudence.

10
If no principle of adjudication for the case can be reduced from either of these sources, it is
acknowledged as a novel case, and natural justice principles are applied to its resolution. But,
if the principles of natural justice cannot be applied to the settlement of the parties' respective
rights due to any technical or other impediment, the case must fail; and, if equity cannot
relieve, the case must fail; and provision can only be made by statute for future cases of libel.

Development of Indian Law of Contract during Modern Era

The task of drafting laws was entrusted to Parliament in England. Statutory law refers to
legislation enacted by Parliament. Parliament enacts laws to govern society's social,
economic, and corporate activities. The terms of the act were enforced and carried out by
state officers. In the event that a dispute developed over the execution of the legislation, the
courts were given the authority to resolve it. After controlling India for 250 years, the British
constructed legislative bodies, such as the Governor–Council, General's which consisted of
British officers, to make laws for ruling India.

Acts were the names given to the laws enacted by these legislative bodies. The Permanent
Land Settlement Act of 1792, the Ryotwari Act of 1807, and the Forest Act of 1865 are all
examples of this. 107 The colonial experience shaped contract law not only in India, but
around the world. There were merchants and traders who traded goods inside India, Europe,
and eventually internationally. If a dispute arose over the dealing of goods in England, it was
taken to the courts. Then came a slew of questions from merchants, traders, and other
property owners, such as:-

 Have the parties reached an amicable agreement?

 Is it possible to back out of a contract once it has been signed?
 What reward should be given to the aggrieved if a person does not execute his part?
 What if an agreement is reached by dishonesty and lies?
 What if an agreement is reached that is in violation of state law?

These were only a handful of the issues that came up. All of these issues were decided by the
Judges based on logic, common sense, and the prevailing justice system. In this case,
previous decisions were used as a guide. Judge-made law emerged as a result of this
precedent-setting process. Common law was created by the court and was based on the
common people's experiences and practises. This was in contrast to Parliamentary Acts,
which were imposed by the legislature. This was referred to as statutory law. 109 The attempt

11
to codify the common law was likewise successful, as previously stated. This resulted in
enactment in a variety of disciplines.

Because contract law is so fundamental, it was decided that it would not be changed and
would remain unchanged. Despite numerous attempts, contract law in England was never
codified. During British control, Hindus who had been subject to the Muslim Law of Contract
during Mohammedan rule had their own laws restored as a result of the British Crown's
ordinances and charters granted to the East India Company. In the Saddar and Mofussil
courts, the Hindu concept of law was revitalised in particular. New issues arose as a result of
the reinstatement of Hindu law and the application of Mohammedan law to Muslims. The
need for a universally applicable code was deemed essential. The Indian Contract Act of
1872 was enacted as a result of this, and it was based on the Common Law of Contract
established in the United Kingdom.10

Today, India has a codified version of “The Indian Contract Act, 1872,” which is based on
English contract law, as we have borrowed a large chunk of our legal system from England.
Between the two world wars, India began to industrialise. Since then, contractual
relationships have exploded in society, and industrialization, which necessitates a large
interchange of commodities and services, has become the economy's backbone and the
cornerstone of social relationships. To put it another way, everything has stayed consistent
with the principles defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1872. The responsibility of making
laws was entrusted to Parliament and state legislatures after 1947 and the adoption of the
Constitution in 1950. Furthermore, following World War II, trade, industry, and commerce
have become the engines of the economy and society. The act of the legislature adopting
legislation to stimulate and regulate business has been justified, for example, the prevention
of food adulteration act of 1954 regulates the manufacturing and marketing of food goods.
Even today, the conceptual concepts and phrases from contract law are used in legislation
governing commerce.

Analysis of Case Laws on Damages

Unless the sum would be unreasonable and another sum would properly achieve the same
compensatory aim, courts often award money for the expense of repairing the fault in

10
In the Aussize of Novel Disseisin, damages were recovered if the tenant was original desseisor but not
otherwise.

12
circumstances where performance is defective or not in accordance with the contract's terms
and conditions.

The House of Lords, rather than awarding the cost of rebuilding or rejecting any award at all,
in Ruxley Electronics Ltd. V. Forsyth, granted an award of £2,500 to reflect the forgone
"consumer surplus" or "loss of amenity." “Damages for breach of contract must reflect, as
exactly as the circumstances allow, the loss which the claimant has experienced because he
did not get what he bargained for,” it was stated explicitly in this case. Punishing the contract
breaker is out of the question. These requirements are usually based on the assumption that
each contractual party's interest in the bargain was solely commercial, and that the loss
resulting from the breach of contract is measured and solely in economic terms.” The
essential premise of contract damages is that they are given to put the injured party in the
same situation he would have been in if he hadn't suffered the injury for which he is suing.11

As a result, the damages must be proportional to the injuries incurred. Damages can be
described as a disadvantage experienced by a person as a result of another's conduct or
default. Damages are remuneration for the natural and likely consequences of a breach, i.e.
what could fairly be expected. The Supreme Court of Gujarat held in Chief Secretary, State
of Gujarat, Gandhinagar v. M/s Kothari's Associates that the function of damages is
compensating rather than retributive, and that this principle applies to both torts and
contracts. The English Court of Appeal granted the plaintiff expenses incurred previously to
the contract in preparation for performance in Anglia Television Ltd v. Reed. “What type of
damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover?” Parke B J asked in Robinson v. Harman. The
common law norm is that “where a party suffers a loss as a result of a breach of contract, he
is to be placed in the same situation, as far as money can accomplish so, in terms of damages,
as if the contract had been performed.”

As a result, damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the loss he or she has
experienced, rather than to punish the defendant for the violation. In Addis v. Gramophone
Co. Ltd., the House of Lords mentioned three situations in which mental pain and suffering
can be considered: “there are three well-known exceptions to the general rule, namely,
actions against a banker for refusing to pay a customer's check when he has in his hands
funds of the customer, to meet it; actions for breach of promise of marriage (now abolished in
E.U. ); and actions for breach of contract (now abolished in Lord Atkinson went on to say
that applying principles to contracts would lead to confusion, uncertainty, anomalies, and
11
Morton Horwitz, “The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law”, 87 Harv. L. Rev. (1974),

13
occasionally unfairness, and that the law would become much more of a lawless science than
it already was. However, the situation in India has lately changed, as evidenced by a case129
in which a sum of Rs. 27,000 was given as damages for violation of marriage commitment.

In this case, the court determined that the damages awarded covered lowered societal regard,
mental suffering, and expenses related to the engagement ceremony. The House of Lords
held in Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary that the limits imposed by
the Addis decision should no longer be used to halt legal progress, and their Lordships'
decision in Malik v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International is a good example of this
forward movement. When a contract is broken, the innocent party owes it to the other party to
take reasonable steps to alleviate the loss. In the event that a party fails to offset their losses,
damages may be lowered or even denied entirely. In Sotiros Shipping Inc v. Sameiet, The
Solholthas, however, Professor Michael stated that “it is not right to express (the mitigation)
rule by declaring that the plaintiff is under a duty to minimise his loss.”

Various tests have been proposed to overcome this problem:

 If the amount indicated is excessive and unconscionable in contrast to the most

serious loss that might be proven to have resulted from the breach, it will be regarded
a penalty.
 It will constitute a penalty if the violation consists solely of failing to pay a sum of
money, and the sum indicated is more than the quantity that should have been paid.
 It is called a penalty when a single lump payment is made payable as compensation
for the occurrence of one or more or all of multiple events, some of which may be
major and others minor losses.
 If a figure agreed upon by the parties is later determined to constitute liquidated
damages, the entire payment is recoverable. However, if it is discovered to be a
"penalty," it will be dismissed, and damages will be calculated according to standard
procedures.

To clarify, Cheshire and Fifoot stated, "Such a stipulation displays sound business judgement
and is beneficial to both parties." It allows them to anticipate the financial repercussions of a
violation; and, if litigation is unavoidable, it eliminates the complexity and high legal costs of
showing what loss the innocent party has actually suffered.” The case of Ford Motor
Company v. Armstrong is a notable example of a "penalty" case. The Indian Contract Act,
1872, establishes a slightly different regulation in this regard under section 74 of the act. In

14
India, the distinction between liquidated damages and penalty was erased in a well-known
case. The courts will only give appropriate compensation that does not exceed the stipulation.
Furthermore, unconscionable and extravagant agreements are struck down by the courts.

The courts have complete discretion in reducing the amount to what appears reasonable in the
circumstances. It is irrelevant whether a side has suffered actual loss. Despite the fact that
Indian and English law diverge on this point, the distinction between liquidated damages and
penalty established in this section is not entirely irrelevant to this section. It is relevant, first
and foremost, in cases where the parties' agreed-upon amount will be decreased only if it
appears to be as a penalty.

If not, the entire amount is recoverable as liquidated damages. Second, the word
"punishment" is used in the first explanation of this clause. It's significant because it says that
"a provision for increased interest from the date of default may be a penalty stipulation." 148
Another similarity between English common law and Indian law can be seen in the Supreme
Court's decision in Chunni Lal Mehta and Mehta &Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg &Mfg Co. Ltd.,
in which the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that "by providing for compensation in
express terms the right to claim damages under the general law is necessarily excluded."

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This research is mostly based on the choices made in the creation of contract law. The
English Courts, the Privy Council, the Court of Appeals, the Chancery Division, the
Exchequer Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, and the Hon'ble High Courts of all other States in India are all studied collectively
in this regard. This research looked into questions such as, "How effective is our Legislature
and Judiciary in awarding damages for contract breaches?" Furthermore, "How do our
country's prominent judges contribute to the development of the notion of damages law
through their court decisions?" The results of this study show that the victim of a contract
breach has a number of options for redress. The execution of these private agreements is the
responsibility of our judicial system. Even court officers and, on rare occasions, the police
may be summoned to execute those contracts on behalf of a private individual. As a result,
this research reveals that the hypothesis is centred on the fact "to what extent the court is
working dramatically, via its decisions, to create the law of damages for breach of contract."
This research will disclose "How the laws are also assisting the judges in deciding new
difficulties placed before them to decide"? Although the Indian legal system provides a

15
number of remedies for breach of contract, there is always the possibility of a new remedy
being developed based on the uniqueness of the situations that come before the court.

HYPOTHESIS

The fundamental goal of this study is to provide an analytical and comparative method that is
based on specific examples. This study focuses on how the law of damages for breach of
contract evolved in both England and India. Furthermore, how and to what extent have we
adopted the concepts of English contract law into Indian contract law. The Court has been
performing unusual and responsible functions in emerging countries like India, such as
evaluating and computing damages claims and ensuring the unrestricted development of
commercial activities in India.

 When and to what extent does judicial intervention in commercial transactions

become necessary?
 Is it appropriate for the court to prescribe parameters for calculating damages?
 Is it necessary to make changes to the current damages law?

In this study, the researcher attempted to determine “how successful the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and Hon'ble High Courts of all
other States in India, as well as the English Courts, the Privy Council, the Court of Appeals,
the Chancery Division, and the Exchequer Court, have been in performing their above-
mentioned functions.” And to what extent have they succeeded in giving a piercing and
understandable voice to the law of damages for breach of contract while performing their
functions?” Furthermore, the researcher has concentrated on specific questions, such as: Have
all of these illustrious institutions been successful in their endeavours?

 How successful have these efforts been thus far?

 Whether or not these efforts have resulted in final success?
 Is there anything wrong with the current legal system?
 Is there a lack of law enforcement in the country?

What efforts can be made to make the entire process of claiming damages for breach of
contract smooth, simple, consistent, and sound so that the aggrieved party receives ultimate
justice? 12The above-mentioned questions, which she has posed to herself, have prompted her

12
Theodore Sedgwick, “A Treatise on the Measure of Damages” (1847), at.pp.392-93; Theophilus Parsons,
“The Law of Contract”

16
to become a research scholar in order to discover the answers, and she has gone through the
complete research process.

CHAPTER-2

17
 REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTS -
CONCEPTUAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

It is reasonable to suppose that obligations, whether resulting from contract, tort, or

restitution, will be broken as long as they exist in our daily lives. “After proving that the
defendant has breached an agreement, the plaintiff would normally seek damages to
compensate for the loss caused by the breach.” 1 Because it is a well-established legal
concept that there must be a remedy where there is a right. As a result, if one party suffers
damages as a result of the other's breach of contract, the former will seek redress for the
breach, and the latter will be required to compensate the former. The purpose of damages,
according to the conservative contract analysis, is to compensate the breach victim for his
losses. This is normally accomplished by awarding anticipated damages, or the sum required
to put the injured person in the position he would have been in if the contract had been
completed. The goal, compensation, and the technique, expectation damages, are both so
well-established in contract law that they seem self-evident. However, deeper study reveals
that the concepts of harm, compensation, and expectation are all ambiguous, and it's not clear
that expectation damages are always compensating. The purpose of this chapter is to look at
the definitions of these key concepts, to create some theoretical and practical assessments of
contract breach damages, and to look at the relationship between these damages and justice
purposes. When an obligation created by a contract expires, it is said to be discharged or
finished. A contract can be terminated in one of several ways: performance; mutual
agreement; difficulty of performance; contract violation; operation of law; time.13

Throughout this chapter, a focus on several fundamental concerns about breach of contract
and the concept of damages is made, such as: -

 What is the meaning of breach of contract? What are the many forms of contract
breach remedies?
 What does it mean when you say "damages"?

13
Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145(1854). Remoteness, in turn, was interpreted to mean
that contracting parties could only recover that which both parties could have contemplated at the time of
contract

18
  It's important to distinguish between damages and compensation, as well as other
related concepts.
 In what circumstances might a victim of a breach of contract be compensated?
 Is he/she going to be compensated up to a point?
 What should the criterion be for calculating damages for breach of contract?

In addition, this chapter identifies and addresses a number of other pertinent issues. It is
critical to understand the major purpose of the remedies available to the aggrieved person
when considering when there is a right, there is a remedy. As a result, the primary objective
of the remedies available for contract violations is to act as a form of social control. It is
undesirable for a contracting party to lose money because he cannot determine how much
money he would have made if the contract had been executed. It is also correct to imply that
a deterrent to negligence is necessary to protect parties who are unaware of their rights in the
case of a contract breach. Taking someone's earnings without their consent is unethical. As a
result, a good legal system is necessary to govern people and offer a reason for them to
refrain from acting in socially and legally unacceptable ways other than conscience. As a
result, the purpose of contract breach remedies can be firmly anchored inside the social
control framework.

As a result, “it is critical to distinguish between different sorts of contract breaches because
their legal ramifications are not the same.” Non-performance can take many forms, including
fundamental and non-fundamental violations, as well as anticipatory and actual breaches.

When "intention" is considered, however, non-performance or violation might be classed as

either intentional or unintentional. The law cannot be indifferent about the defendant who has
behaved in bad faith when a contract is knowingly broken. Some legal systems have been
modernised to achieve this purpose, and remedies have been altered in favour of plaintiffs.”
Contract law, for example, provides a number of remedies for contract breaches. 14 As a result,
it is vital to briefly examine these treatments in order to obtain a better understanding of the
concept. Contracts are the lifeblood of the business world. As national and international
relations have evolved, its significance has expanded. Despite the fact that the parties fulfil
their contractual obligations in the vast majority of cases, which reflects their intention. There

14
.J. Stephen, “A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions”, Washington, DC: Morrison

19
are situations, however, when one or both contracting parties fail to fulfil their obligations,
resulting in non-performance.

As a result, each legal system has its own set of norms for dealing with contract non-
performance, which in most circumstances takes the form of monetary compensation. There
are many different types of breaches in a legal system, each with its own set of remedies.

As a result, before pursuing any remedy, one must be aware of the nature of the breach. It is
important to note that the seriousness of the breach may be critical in this case, as remedies
differ based on the type of breach. The repercussions of intentional breach of contract, for
example, are different since it reflects the non-performing party's hazardous behaviour. Many
legal systems consider ill-will when assessing whether or not a non-performance is
fundamental in this regard. In addition, willfully breaching a contract in our legal system has
the effect of extending the breaching party's liability to unforeseeable consequences. The
offended party has the right to terminate the contract as well as seek punitive damages in the
event of a deliberate breach. As a result, it's important to explain what contract breach is and
what remedies are available in the event of one.15

BREACH OF CONTRACT MEANING, NATURE, AND EFFECT

The definition of the word "breach" is "a breach of trust."

Breach is defined as failing to follow through on a requirement or promise. According to

Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law, a breach is defined as "failure to accomplish what is
required by a law, an agreement, or a responsibility." 5 According to the Oxford Law Student
Dictionary, a breach is "an act of breaching or failing to follow a law, agreement, or rule of
conduct."

The term "breach of contract" has a specific definition.

Break of agreement happens when a party, regardless of whether composed or oral, neglects
to satisfy any prerequisite of an agreement without cause. Inability to do a task, inability to
fork over the required funds or on schedule, inability to convey all things, subbing mediocre
or altogether various products, inability to outfit a security when mentioned, being late
without defense, or whatever other direct that shows the party won't finish the agreement.
15
White & Summers, “Uniform Commercial Code”, ed. 6th, (2010) (Hornbook Series) KF890.W45 at
Reference Area.

20
Quite possibly the most widely recognized explanations behind recording a claim in court for
harms or "specific execution" of an agreement is break of agreement. As indicated by Black
Law Dictionary, "break of agreement" is "inability to satisfy the provisions of an agreement."
subsequently, a break of agreement is a lawful expression that alludes to an infringement of
an agreement or understanding where one party neglects to keep its responsibilities or
meddles with the capacity of another party to satisfy its obligations. 16 An agreement may be
to some extent or totally broken. Agreements typically end after the two players have met
their legally binding liabilities; be that as it may, on the off chance that one of the gatherings
can't satisfy their authoritative commitments for individual reasons, the agreement is
considered abused. Break of agreement is the most widely recognized justification
prosecuting contract-related issues for goal. To maintain a break of agreement case, the court
should fulfill itself of the entirety of the accompanying prerequisites: -

 To be considered by a court, the contract must be legal; that is, it must have all of the
contract's fundamental parts. If all of the essentials are absent, the contract will not be
considered legal, and no legal action will be taken.
 The plaintiff must show that the defendant broke the agreement.
 The plaintiff meticulously fulfilled the contract's obligations.
 The plaintiff must have provided adequate notice of the breach to the respondent.

The notice will be more effective if it is issued in writing rather than orally. As a result, “a
breach of contract arises when a party renounces his responsibilities under it because his own
act makes performing his obligations under it impossible for him, or when he fails to meet
such obligations wholly or partially.” Failure to perform or renunciation might happen before
or after the performance deadline has expired.

NATURE OF BREACH

The classification of a contract breach is important because it dictates the parties' next steps:
whether to cancel the contract, sue for damages, or do both. As a result, there are two kinds of
breaches:

There are two types of breaches: 1. anticipatory breach and 2. actual or current breach.

What's the Difference Between Anticipatory and Actual Breach?

16
Hans Wehberg, “PactasuntServanda”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.53

21
Contract breaches can be divided into two categories. Contract breaches, both anticipated and
actual, are terrible news for the contracting parties. They can waste time and money while
also causing annoyance among the contracting parties. An actual breach happens when one
party rejects or fails to perform his or her portion of the agreement by the due date, but an
anticipatory breach occurs when one party declares his or her intention to not perform his or
her part of the agreement before the due date for performance. This isn't to suggest that
neither scenario is without alternatives. A violation of contract, in any form, gives the
innocent party the right to claim for damages.

BREACH OF CONTRACT REMEDIES

Contracts; unilateral activities; acts that do harm; acts that give a benefit; and the law will
establish personal duties or rights as a result of dispositions, legal events, and the law.

Contracts are the primary source of responsibility, and any liability arising from contract
breaches is subject to the contractual liability's scope of applicability in the presence of a
contract. A contract is meaningless if the rights that follow from it are not enforced. This is
why the Latin maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium, or "where there is a right, there is a cure,"
applies in this case. If a right did not come with a remedy, it would be worthless. Many
commercial contracts have specific remedy provisions. There may be a presumption that all
of the provisions that will govern their contractual relationship were expressly inserted into
the contract by the parties. They sought to do so in order to nullify any legal rights or
remedies that aren't covered by the contract. 17

Any precise remedy sought by a party in the case of a breach should be included in the
contract. A cumulative remedy clause's objective is to ensure that the parties' clearly stated
rights in the agreement are in addition to their legal rights. If the parties haven't agreed on a
remedy for breach of contract, they can rely on the remedies provided under contract law. A
breach of contract occurs when one party to a contract violates a basic contractual term, or
when one party to a contract fails to perform some or all of the contract's responsibilities. If
one party breaches the contract, the other party has the right to terminate it without further
obligation. As a result, one of the contracting parties must have committed a mistake or
breached the contract, causing the other party to suffer losses as a result of the mistake or
breach. There are repercussions for such violations.

The Definition of Remedy

17
Bernstein DE., “Freedom of Contract”, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 08- 51. (2008).

22
A remedy is a legal procedure that allows an aggrieved party to return to the position it had
previous to the breach of contract, or to the one it would have had the contract been
completed. In general, there are two types of remedies:

Legal remedy; equitable remedy

What is the difference between a legal remedy and an equitable remedy?

The best place to seek remedy for wrongdoings, particularly contract breaches, was regarded
to be the courts of law. The Courts of Equity were recognised as the court of last resort when
the remedy in the Courts of Law was insufficient or unfair. In some form or another, the
Common Law system has been followed across India. In India, both remedies are applied, but
unlike England, there is no distinction between Courts of Law and Courts of Equity. Both
remedies are permissible in India's courts.

Taking Legal Action

"Compensatory damages" and "consequential damages" are the two types of legal remedies
in general. These are monetary damages intended to put the aggrieved person in the same
position he would have been in if the contract had been fulfilled, as well as to compensate for
any financial losses made as a result of the breach.

Equitable Alternatives

Evenhanded cures are engaged with equity, instead of genuine financial harms endured
because of an infringement. At the point when the items are exceptional, one normal fair cure
is "explicit execution," which permits a court to arrange a non-performing party to complete
the agreement's definite terms. In such conditions, the courts can refresh or change the
agreement's terms to make it more impartial for one or the two players, or on the other hand,
if the agreement is unnecessarily uncalled for to one party, the court can repeal or break up
the whole agreement and return the two players to their unique positions. Up to this time,
18
various solutions for contract infringement have been conceived according to the Indian
point of view. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 takes into account the accompanying kinds of
claims for infringement of agreement :

18
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. V. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., (1962) 1 All ER 474; In re The
MihailisAngelos (1971) 1 QB 164.

23
  Damages or compensation
 Individualized outcomes
 Injunctions
 Rescission

Since the focal point of this examination is only on "harms" for break of agreement, the "idea
of harms" should be completely researched, while the other break of-agreement cures should
be momentarily talked about. On the off chance that one party is observed to be in break of
an agreement, the offended party has various alternatives for recovering misfortunes, known
as cures. The most widely recognized cure is financial remuneration for the misfortunes the
distressed party has endured because of the break of agreement. Because of the break of
agreement, another commitment, specifically the harmed party's right of activity, emerges. In
these conditions, a claim for harms is suitable. Harms are a financial sum set by the court to
be paid by the respondent to the offended party in case of an agreement break. Harms for
break of agreement are typically determined to place the offended party in a similar
circumstance as though the agreement had been satisfied. 16 According to this hypothesis,
the conventional job of harms is remuneration, or the honor of an amount of cash to reward
the offended party for the misfortunes the person has endured. Accordingly, a harms grant's
chief object is to placed the offended party in the position he would have been in if the break
of agreement had not happened.

DEFINITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE WORD "DAMAGES"

Damage simply refers to a monetary amount paid as remuneration for any loss or harm.
Damages refers to monetary compensation for losses or injuries caused by negligence or a
deliberate act, as well as a court estimate or award of a sum as a fine for breach of contract or
statutory duty. It is the monetary compensation, restitution, or satisfaction that the law awards
or imposes for a loss incurred or a wrong done as a result of a violation of contract. A
monetary judgement for the breach of a common law right is known as damages.19

DAMAGES ARE NOT THE SAME AS OTHER RELATED CONCEPTS.

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, says that a party to a contract can only claim
reimbursement from the other party who has violated the contract if he can prove that he has
suffered loss or damage, and only to the extent that he has suffered such loss or damage.
19
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v.New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., (1915) AC 79; (1914-15) All ER Rep 739
(HL).

24
26 As a result, knowing the difference between the terms "damages" and other related
terminology is critical to comprehending the concept.

What is the distinction between the terms "damages," "damage," and "injury"?

Regardless of the way that the expressions "harms," "harm," and "injury" are now and again
utilized reciprocally, there is a principal contrast between them. Coming up next is the
differentiation between these terms: "Injury is the unapproved exercise of an unapproved
right." The expression "harm" suggests the injury's misfortune, distress, or mischief. The
financial reward got for the misfortune is alluded to as "harms." by and large, the expression
"harm" alludes to devaluation brought about by an improper or legal demonstration;
notwithstanding, in resolutions or other legitimate instruments giving remuneration to
"harms," the expression "harm" alludes to some noteworthy misfortune, injury, or mischief
coming about because of another's unlawful demonstration, oversight, or carelessness. With
regards to the cash that an offended party court can recuperate from the litigant,
notwithstanding, the expressions "model," "fine," "punishment," "discipline," "vengeance, etc
are never inseparable from or connected to the expressions "harm" or "harms."

What is the distinction among "Harms" and "Pay"?

"As Lord Esher saw in Dixon v. Calcraft31, pay isn't commonly utilized as an identical to
harms," as called attention to in a Calcutta case30. "Nonetheless, as commented by Fry, L.J.
in Skinners Co. v. Knight32, pay may regularly must be estimated by the s," as commented
by Fry, L.J. in Skinners Co. v. Knight32. Pay is characterized as "that which is given in
reward, and identical delivered," as indicated by the Oxford word reference. Harms are
characterized as "the amount of cash not set in stone to be paid in pay for misfortune or injury
encountered; the assessed money related benefit of anything lost or retained." The
etymological importance of "pay" is to adjust one thing against another. The essential
significance is equality, though the optional and more normal definition is something offered
or acquired as a same. While "harms" alludes to financial compensation gave in remuneration
to a misfortune or injury brought about by an unlawful demonstration or exclusion, "pay"
alludes to lawful conduct that delivered the mischief and for which a reimbursement is
acquired under the details of a particular rule. 20

20
Kemble v. Farren, (1829) 6 Bing 141; (1824-34) All ER Rep 641.

25
The distinction among harms and pay was underlined in a case34 as follows:

"The term pay isn't frequently utilized as a substitute for harms. It's a legitimate term that
alludes to a lawful activity that has caused injury. Thus, any harms would be rejected from
the word pay." A case for unliquidated harms doesn't turn into a right until the culpability is
set up and harms are dictated by a court or other adjudicatory authority through an
announcement or request. At the point when an agreement is penetrated, neither the party
who broke it nor the individual who griped about it promptly turns out to be monetarily
obligated, nor does the party who grumbled become qualified for an obligation due from the
other party. An individual that has been wronged by a break of agreement has just one cure:
sue for harms, which is anything but a significant case

What's the Difference Between Damages and Indemnity?

The non-defaulting or non-breaching party to a contract has the right to indemnity and
damages under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These two rights are fundamentally different
legal notions, despite the fact that they are frequently misinterpreted. The main difference
between indemnification and damages rights is that the former originates from a breach of
contract, whilst the latter arises from the initial contract. 38 The losses you experience as a
result of a contract breach are known as damages. Third parties might also sue for damages if
their property is harmed or if they are injured. Indemnity protects third-party claims for
injuries or losses sustained as a result of one of the agreement's parties' actions. 39 The
distinction between indemnification and damages in terms of right enforcement is that
indemnification may take longer to enforce.

Is there a distinction between "damages" and "debt"?

In a new choice, the qualification between these two assertions was underscored as follows:
"There is no motivation behind why the offended party ought not be permitted to recuperate
the advances it gave to the litigant." Because the reimbursement of the credits did not depend
on the agreement's presentation or non-execution. Therefore, a qualification exists between
the two ideas. Harms vary from obligation in that they are a total payable under a legally
binding commitment to pay a particular aggregate on a particular occasion (other than a
break), however they additionally incorporate aggregates payable under sensible cost or
compensation claims for products sold or benefits delivered, just as cases under a protection
strategy when the quantum of harm has been set up.

26
DAMAGES ARE THE MOST COMMON JUDICIAL REMEDY.

The most well-known precedent-based law solution for break of agreement is an honor of
harms. This is a financial sum controlled by the court to remunerate the hurt party. To
recuperate significant harms, the honest individual should show that he has experienced
veritable misfortune; if there has been no certified misfortune, he may be qualified for
ostensible harms in acknowledgment of the way that he has a legitimate right of activity.
Therefore, the most well-known and pivotal court cure is a harms grant. The motivation
behind a harms grant is to returned the harmed individual on a similar balance as he would
have been in the event that he had not endured misfortunes. Therefore, the measure of
remuneration paid should be proportionate to the misfortunes endured. 42 This is steady with
PART B's decision in Robinson v. Harman43, which states: "Where an individual
experiences a misfortune because of a break of agreement, he is to be set in similar conditions
concerning harms as though the agreement had been finished, so particularly far as cash can
achieve it." at the end of the day, compensation and fulfillment for a wrong should be relative
to the mischief done, with the end goal that the oppressed individual is reestablished to the
position he held before to some unacceptable." 44 The organization's position that it is
qualified for harms because of the refusal to supply cash and secure items is right, as per the
Apex Court in a case45. Since a home loan, once composed and recorded, establishes a total
exchange of property, the Transfer of Property Act of 1881 applies similarly as the Indian
Contract Act of 1872 does. The agreement for a loan was still basically. The mortgagor could
either request explicit execution or announce himself liberated from the commitment to give
the items. The state couldn't guarantee that its obligation to purchase the items had finished in
light of the fact that it didn't propel the cash under the home loan. No harms were conceded
when the offended party was the wellspring of the stacking delay.21

DAMAGES CLASSIFICATION

A monetary award issued by a court in a civil dispute to a person who has suffered as a result
of the unlawful action of another party. Damages are an attempt to put a monetary value on

21
Furmston, “Law of Contract”, ed.9th,

27
the level of harm suffered by a plaintiff as a result of the defendant's actions. Damages are
intended to put an injured party back in the position they were in before to their injury. As a
result, damages are frequently thought of as remedial rather than preventative or punitive.
Punitive damages, on the other hand, can be awarded in some cases. The injury must be one
that is legally recognised as warranting redress and that the subject has actually endured
before an individual can recover damages. As a result, before pursuing any remedy, the
injured person must first define the nature of his losses in order to pursue the right remedy.
The law divides damages into five categories: compensatory damages, punitive damages,

 Losses in Nominal Terms

 The term "punitive damages" refers to a sort of penalty.
 Damage is dealt in threes.
 Damages that have been liquidated as well as damages that have yet to be liquidated.

These are the most prevalent sorts of legal damages, yet this is not an exhaustive list because
there are additional types of losses. The following sections cover all of these sorts of
damages: - Damages for the Purpose of Compensatory Reasons

In terms of compensatory damages, a plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant for all of the
natural and direct consequences of the defendant's wrongful act, for which the defendant is
liable. The far-reaching implications of a defendant's act or omission cannot be used to
impose compensatory damages. Even if estimating the amount with precision can be difficult,
particularly in cases involving claims for pain and suffering or emotional distress, the amount
of compensatory damages must be considerable and real. Based on broad experience and
understanding of economics and social events, the judge or jury must use good judgement
and common sense in assessing the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded. Within
these broad parameters, the jury or judge has broad discretion to award damages in whatever
amount deemed just by the jury or judge based on the evidence given in the case.

Losses in Nominal Terms

Nominal damages are defined as a sum of money that can be spoken about but isn't
quantifiable, or a basic peg for hanging jackets. When the injured party has not suffered any
loss as a result of the breach of contract, the damages collected by the aggrieved party are

28
minor, as in a case53 where it was found that: A firm consisting of four partners engaged B
for a term of two years. Two of the partners retired after six months, leaving the other two to
operate the business. B turned down the opportunity to work for the firm's long-term partners.
Because he had suffered no loss, the court determined that he was only entitled to nominal
damages.

Damages in Case of Punishment

Punitive damages are also known as exemplary damages. Only in the last two centuries have
punitive damages been mentioned in the common law. 75 The court reaffirmed its adherence
to the idea of punitive damages in this decision. Other types of punishment, on the other
hand, are as old as human law. Punitive damages appear to have developed with the jury trial
in Anglo-American Common law jurisprudence78, despite the fact that the concept was
unknown in Roman law76 and hence in French civil law, albeit their evolution is a little
fuzzy.

Damages in threes

According to legal jargon, "treble damages" refers to a provision that allows a court to triple
the amount of real or compensatory damages to be given to a plaintiff. In British English,
"treble" simply means "three." The word "treble damages" has survived the shift in American
English from "treble" to "triple." Actual damages are multiplied by treble damages. It is not a
supplement to the actual damages. As an example, if a person obtained a $100 award for an
accident, a court using treble damages would increase the award to $300. 89 The major goal
of such damages is to encourage citizens to file lawsuits for infractions that are harmful to
society as a whole.

The goal of a triple damages lawsuit is to help achieve the statute's broad social goal, not only
to compensate an individual who has been harmed by unlawful acts.

As a result of the successful private triple damage claim, which has been described as a
"curious mix of public regulatory and private compensatory law," damages will be awarded
that can be considered both "punitive" and "compensatory."

Damages that have been liquidated and damages that have not been liquidated.

29
Damages that have been liquidated

Actual damages are a type of liquidated damages. The term "liquidated damages" is usually
encountered in a contract. Liquidated damages are a helpful negotiating tool in commercial
agreements, but there is a risk that if they are not properly studied or worded, they will be
viewed as a "penalty clause," rendering them unenforceable. In a recent decision93, the
argument over "take or pay" clauses was rekindled by the confirmation that such provisions
could also be in violation of the penalty rule. A liquidated damages provision will not be
enforced in Common Law if the intention of the clause is to punish the wrongdoer or the
breaching party rather than to pay the damaged party. “Liquidated Damages” refers to a sum
determined by the contracting parties as damages to be paid regardless of the actual damage.
The contracting parties may agree at the outset that in the event of a breach, the breaching
party will pay a specified quantity of money to the non-breaching party, or that in the event of
a breach by one party, any money given to the other party will be forfeited. It's a "pre-
estimate of damages" that's expected to occur as a result of the breach. However, liquidated
damage is distinct from the phrase "penalty," which refers to a sum designed to ensure
contract performance.

Liquidated Damages and Penalty: What's the Difference?

As previously stated, liquidated damages are a real or actual, covenanted pre-estimate of

damages. However, A penalty is a sum stated in fear (with the intent of jeopardising the
party's ability to perform the contract), and an amount might be considered a punishment if
the quantity named is excessive and unconscionable. If the breach involves the payment of
money, and the amount stipulated is larger than the amount that should have been paid, it is a
penalty. Both are must be judged on their own facts and circumstances. The nature and
character of the transaction, as well as any special features, if any, the relative situation of the
parties, the rights and obligations arising from such a transaction under the law, and the
parties' intention must all be considered by the court when determining whether a particular
stipulation in a contract is in the nature of a penalty. If, after such a thorough examination, the
court determines that the true objective for which the provision was placed in the contract
was to instil fear in the promisor so that he would complete the contract, the stipulation will
be deemed a Penalty.

30
Liquidated Damages and the Possibility of Non-Enforcement

Liquidated damages are founded on the fundamental principle of contract freedom, which led
to the courts' general conclusion that these damages should be awarded. If this is not the case,
the significant benefits of these losses will be lost. The court in an English case98 held that
liquidated damages are enforceable only if, at the time of drafting, it was difficult to
determine the damages that would accrue if the contemplated breach occurred; and the
amount of the liquidated damages provision was a reasonable estimate of the actual suffered
damage.

Everyone should be conversant with numerous guidelines for drafting or reviewing liquidated
damages. These are detailed in the following sections with the help of current examples of
their use:

 Sum so stipulated must not be “Excessive and Unconscionable”:-

“The sum stipulated in the contract must not be excessive and unconscionable does
not mean that it has to be very similar in amount to the actual losses; in fact, the
courts must be inclined to allow a fairly liberal margin for error, especially in
situations where the likely damage is difficult to assess,” the court said in Alfred
McAlpine projects Ltd v. Tile box Ltd.

Payment Default Obligation requires a different approach: -

These kinds of breaks give off an impression of being tended to uniquely in contrast
to different sorts of commitments breaks. On the off chance that the break being
referred to is the inability to pay an authoritative total and the sold harms are more
noteworthy than that aggregate, the break will be dared to be a punishment in Dunlop
Pneumatic Tire Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd., (1915) AC 79. 99 (2005)
EWHC 281 (TCC). Albeit the courts can build it, any such increment should be
sensible as far as amount and have a compensatory reason.

The nature of the breach must be taken into account:

The parties shall set distinct sums for each conceivable breach, with the amount
explicitly indicated in relation to the expected severity of each breach. If no such item

31
 exists, a single payment should be paid for both significant and minor infractions.
Furthermore, as the court of appeal in CMC v. Michael Zhang stated, if the price
indicated in the contract is for any breach of agreement, then a single sum should be
payable for any breach. 100 In this case, the court determined that liquidated damages
were a penalty because the same sum ($40,000) was due for any breach of the
contract, regardless of the form of the ensuing loss.

For a Legitimate Commercial Purpose, Liquidated Damages must be specified:

The contract's specification of liquidated damages must be commercially justified.
This is especially true where it deviates from the normal format, as as the “take or pay
clause” in M & J polymers Ltd. v. Imerys Minerals Ltd. 101 or a clause allowing for
the return of shares in the event of a default, as in Cavendish Square Holdings BV v.
Talal El Makdessi.

Liquidated Damages' primary purpose must not be critical: -

It indicates that the objective of liquidated damages must be compensating, despite
the fact that they are designed to encourage contract compliance in the case of a
breach. It will be a punishment if the overarching goal is to threaten a party with
failure to meet the contract's obligations.

It's also important to think about the contract's type and background in
business: -

The commercial backdrop and nature of contract must be considered by the court
when awarding liquidated damages. It is necessary to mention the court's views on
penalty clauses in M & J Polymers case 104. According to the sources cited, the
ability to strike down a penalty clause is "a clear interference with the freedom of
contract" that "has no place. where there is any tyranny." To reflect this, courts
should, if possible, support contractual conditions that set the amount of damages for
breach, particularly in commercial contracts voluntarily entered into two parties with
equivalent bargaining power.

The amount in question must be due as a result of the breach:

32
 In another key choice, the court suggested that the material exchanged harms proviso
be composed as a basic commitment as opposed to a solution for a break sooner rather
than later. The adjudicator proceeded to say that, if the sold misfortunes condition is
effectively interpreted, the objective of the statement ought to be to convey the money
in return for the guarantee, not to startle the party to finish the agreement. Really at
that time would it not be considered a discipline.

The clarification above exhibits that exchanged harms are viewed as a potential cure
in many agreements. By and large, courts won't intercede in a party's authoritative
relationship except if and until it is significant. It is additionally honorable that courts
are turning out to be more aware of the business setting and contentions that are
needed to grant exchanged harms.

Damages that have not been redressed

Unliquidated harms are amounts of cash that are not settled upon ahead of time by the
legally binding gatherings as pay for a break of agreement, however are dictated by a
court after the infringement happened. 107 The degree of such misfortunes is obscure.
As a rule, such misfortunes can't be counterbalanced. Unliquidated harms won't be
liable to intrigue. 108 The court decides unliquidated harms, which are expected to
remunerate the honest party for any misfortunes supported because of an agreement
break.

At the point when misfortune can't be demonstrated, notwithstanding, the honest party
is simply qualified for negligible harms. In Surrey CC v. Bredero Homes, the Council
was not granted harms since it had not experienced any misfortune because of the
litigant's inability to consent to arranging authorization, as opposed to Chaplin v.
Hicks, where the Court of Appeal granted harms to the petitioner for the departure of
an opportunity to win a rivalry.

The expression "unliquidated harms," as opposed to "exchanged harms," alludes to

harms that can't be characterized at the hour of contracting or consented to by the
gatherings, and are passed on to the Court's attentiveness not set in stone under the
standards overseeing harms estimation. Regardless of whether a particular worth is
given in the arguing as the sum at which the offended party computes the harms, it

33
 has no effect. Sold harms are those that have been settled upon and fixed by the
gatherings.

It is the cash settled upon by the gatherings as payable in case of one of them
defaulting. These harms are covered by Section 74. The court gauges or investigations
the misfortunes or misfortune in any remaining conditions; such harms are
unliquidated. It's conceivable that the gatherings concur on a specific sum as sold
harms for a single type of break, and afterward the party who experiences another
kind of break sues for the unliquidated misfortunes coming about because of that
break. At the point when the agreement expressed that if the products were not
conveyed before the settled upon date, the buyer reserved the privilege to guarantee
harms at the settled upon rate, and in case they were not conveyed inside seven days
of the settled upon date, the buyer reserved the option to drop the agreement and
encash the bank ensure, it was held that the merchandise were conveyed inside the
lengthy time.

Harms that have not been paid are not reformatory in nature. The motivation behind these
harms isn't to punish the litigant. These harms are not given to recover any addition acquired
by the litigant because of a break since they are not restitutionary in character. M/S. Kusal
Construction Company v. Civil Corporation of Delhi is a huge case on this theme that has the
right to be investigated. In this example, the court concluded that there is no subjective
contrast in the substance of the case, regardless of whether it is intended for exchanged harms
or unliquidated harms, as far as Indian law. The Indian Contract Act, Section 74, dispenses
with the moderately convoluted qualifications made under English customary law between
arrangements accommodating exchanged harms installment and specifications as
punishment.

A real pre-gauge of harms came to by shared arrangement is treated as a specification naming

exchanged harms and restricting between the gatherings under the custom-based law: a
specification in an agreement in terrorem is a punishment, and the Court won't authorize it,
granting just sensible remuneration to the abused party. The Indian governing body has
endeavored to slice through the snare of rules and assumptions under English precedent-

34
based law by ordering a uniform rule that applies to all specifications naming adds up to be
paid in the event of break and specifications via punishment, and as per this guideline,
regardless of whether there is a specification via sold harms, a party grumbling of break of
agreement can recuperate a total equivalent to the specification via exchanged harms. The
way that the litigant's case is for exchanged harms has no effect for this situation. It has
similar legitimate remaining as a case for neglected harms. A case for unliquidated harms
doesn't bring about an obligation until or except if the responsibility is settled and harms are
evaluated by a court or other adjudicatory expert as a pronouncement or request. At the point
when an agreement is broken, the party who broke it has no monetary commitments, and the
party who whined about it has no option to an obligation owed by the other party. The sole
cure accessible to an individual that has been violated by an agreement break is the option to
sue, which isn't viewed as a noteworthy case.22

RESCISSION

When the aggrieved person does not require the intervention of the court, he has this
privilege. It is only possible in the event of a condition being breached, and it allows the
damaged party to cancel the contract. Significant restoration is achievable if the wounded
party is returned to their pre-contractual position. A rescission requires that all parties be
returned to their previous positions prior to entering into the contract. As a result, a revoked
contract is cancelled from the start, as if it never existed. It actually means that any contract
advantage, such as money, must be recovered. The following are the fundamental causes for
Rescission: - Innocent or fraudulent representation; - Mutual error; - Lack of ability to
contract; - Impossibility of performing a contract not anticipated by the parties; - Duress; -
Undue influence

A contract can also be cancelled in a variety of other circumstances. A party can repudiate a
contract if the other party breaches it, but the breach must be so serious that it contradicts the
contract's purpose. A contract can also be cancelled by mutual agreement. A contract can be
cancelled if all of the parties agree.
22
AIR 1962 SC 1314: 1962 Supp (3) SCR 549: (1962) 1 LLJ 656. Penalty cannot be imposed where delay is
due to the conduct of the party trying to impose penalty. ONGC v. S.S. Agarwalla& Co., AIR 1984 Gau.

35
RESTITUTION

It is frequently referred to as quasi contracts and is based on the principle of unjust

enrichment. To rescind a contract, restitution simply involves returning the goods or property
received from the opposing side. The plaintiff must show that the advantage to the defendant
came at the expense of the plaintiff, and that allowing the defendant to preserve that benefit
or enrichment would be unjust. The defendant must receive a profit or gain, and he or she
should not be able to depend on a defence. The court concluded in Pavey & Matthews Pty
Ltd v Paul that an interpretation that meets the statutory aim while avoiding a harsh and
unreasonable application should be favoured. The court went on to say that, when it came to
debt, an action for debt could not be brought since the contract was not enforceable due to a
lack of formalities; this would only be an action to enforce the contract. As a result, Paul was
prevented from unjustly enriching himself at Pavey's expense in this case. As a result,
restitution-based remedy was awarded. The fourth chapter of this thesis delves into this case
in depth. Specific performance of the contracts is the next remedy for violation of contract.23

CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE IN DETAIL

Explicit execution is a fair cure allowed by the court to propel a litigant to perform what the
offended party consented to do in an agreement. Through special case, this cure is accessible.
Therefore, this cure contrasts from the cure of harms for break of agreement, which gives
financial pay to inability to do the agreement's arrangements. Harms and explicit execution
are both accessible in case of an agreement party's break of commitments; the previous is a
"substitutional" cure, while the last is a "particular" cure. This is an evenhanded cure that the
court might give at its carefulness. Along these lines, specific execution is a court request
requiring a party to satisfy his legally binding obligations.

This cure is oftentimes available when harms are deficient, like when the agreement's topic is
remarkable in character, as for Falcke's situation with Chinese jars. Nonetheless, if a
substitution of the topic can be obtained even after an impressive deferral, the court will

23
B.A.Wortley, “The interaction of Public and Private International Law today”, The Hague, Academy of
International Law, (1954), at.pp.239-342

36
allow a request for specific execution. The overall principle in regards to explicit execution is
that it won't be requested in case the agreement's commitments are not obviously
characterized and the agreement requires execution or steady management throughout some
undefined time frame. For instance, the House of Lords wouldn't structure explicit execution
of a pledge to keep a shop open during ordinary business hours in light of the fact that
requirement of a contract to complete an agreement to do a contract to do a pledge to do a
pledge to do an agreement to do a pledge to convey

For another situation 185, be that as it may, the standard was turned around regarding an
inhabitant's maintenance commitments. In this occurrence, the appointed authority reached
the resolution that the conventional standard of rejecting explicit execution on the off chance
that it required consistent management was as of now not substantial, or that there were
special cases.

Explicit execution might be accessible to property managers just in the most surprising
conditions (like this occurrence); in any case, the contentions expressed propose that it ought
to be accessible in different circumstances also. A particular presentation request was given,
requesting leaseholders to burn through £300,000 on level fixes. Since the agreement
manages results instead of the continuation of a movement throughout some undefined time
frame, and it as a rule depicts the work to be finished with sureness, explicit execution is
every now and again mentioned corresponding to building contracts in England. Agreements
requiring individual administrations, for example, work contracts, are not qualified for
explicit execution on the grounds that such a request would restrict a person's opportunity.

The court has wide expert in choosing whether or not to grant explicit execution, and in doing
as such, it thinks about the accompanying elements:

1. Delay in requesting the order.

2. Whether the individual demanding performance is willing to fulfil his contractual
obligations.
3. The difference between the benefit (which the order would provide to one party) and
the cost of performance (which the order would impose on the other party)..

37
 4. Whether the individual against whom the order is sought would face difficulty in
carrying out the order.
5. Whether any rights of third parties would be harmed.

This act allows for a number of remedies, which are summarised below: Recovery of
Possession of Property.

1. Contracts must be fulfilled in a specific manner.

2. Instruments are rectification and cancellation, and contracts are rescinded.
3. Preventative Reliefs are a type of treatment that is used to prevent problems from
occurring
4. Declaratory Relief is a term used to describe a type of relief that is granted

However the agreement is intended for ostensible thought, regardless of whether it is under
seal, the standard "value won't help a volunteer" applies, and specific execution won't be
requested.

Harms may not be adequate pay in certain conditions of agreement break. The court may then
request the encroaching party to satisfy his guarantee as per the agreement's terms. This is a
court request that requires a positive legally binding commitment to be satisfied. Courts, then
again, are hesitant to compel a party to accomplish something he has effectively would not
do.

It alludes to the gatherings' genuine exhibition of their agreement, and in proper conditions,
the Court will arrange the gatherings to do as such. At the point when a party neglects to
satisfy their commitments under an agreement, the Court may, at its carefulness, require the
litigant to release his commitments as per the agreement's arrangements. Notwithstanding or
lieu of harms, a court might arrange specific execution. Explicit execution is regularly
conceded in exchanges including land, like the acquisition of a particular plot or house, or the
acquisition of debentures in an organization. On account of an offer of merchandise, it may
be allowed if the items are unique and can't be bought available, for example, a specific
hustling horse, or then again in case they are of exceptional worth to the party suing in view
of individual or family ties, like a legacy.

38
The Explicit Relief Act of 1963, Part II, spreads out explicit norms for contract explicit
execution. In the accompanying conditions, explicit execution isn't accessible: Section 74 is
to be deciphered related to area 73, and hence the individual abused by the break isn't
important to demonstrate genuine misfortune or damage prior to guaranteeing a
pronouncement for each situation of break of agreement. Regardless of whether no real
misfortune is demonstrated because of the agreement's break, the court has the power to give
satisfactory remuneration. In the event that the particulars of the agreement are clear and
unambiguous, specifying exchanged harms in case of a break, the party who has penetrated
the agreement is needed to pay such remuneration, except if not set in stone that such a gauge
of harms/pay is outlandish or is via punishment, as given in segment 73 of the Contract Act.
The presentation of trust is the place where the demonstration is to be finished. As a rule, the
court will possibly arrange explicit execution in case it is simply and impartial.

As per one famous perspective, the ethical commitment to keep up with guarantees suggests
that agreements ought not be broken, and that the law ought to explicitly implement
contracts. Researchers have noticed this 116 perspective, and significant specialists like the
Restatement of Contracts have refered to it193. 194 The Specific Relief Act of 1963 in India
covers a wide scope of legitimate issues that should be tended to (47 of 1963). It is plentifully
obvious that just expressing rights and obligations is lacking to give life and property
security. Any demonstration's decree of rights and commitments should be went with a
lawful gadget that helps the person in implementing their privileges. Any individual who has
been hurt because of a social cycle is qualified for repayment. Along these lines, just when
the aphorism "where there is a right, there is a cure" is sensibly significant will human culture
be considered coordinated. Commonly, cures are additionally given in the space of
considerable law that indicates rights and responsibilities regarding its own motivations, like
The Law of Contract, which gives a cure of harms for break of agreement, and The Law of
Torts, which gives an equivalent solution for convoluted wrongs. 195 as far as reliefs and
cures, nonetheless, considerable laws are rarely comprehensive. However long there is a
requirement for a law that gives an organization of reliefs and cures specifically words, there
will consistently be a requirement for such enactment. 196 This type of act doesn't make a

39
right all by itself, however it gives a particular solution for a lawful right encroachment. The
Specific Relief Act of 1963 is of a similar sort

Only the second point needs to be explored in detail here, as per the requirements of my study
project. The most crucial feature of civil rights is the fulfilment of an expectation formed by a
voluntary contract between the parties. Contracts underpin all economic relationships, and
contracts underpin all jobs and professions, so these contracts must be fulfilled under all
circumstances. A contract is a relationship between a series of contracts, not an individual
transaction. As a result, failing to fulfil such obligations can result in major social and
economic disruptions.

As a result, contracts must be upheld in court. The only way that the law of contract can
enforce a contract is by awarding compensation to the aggrieved party. Compensation, on the
other hand, is frequently insufficient as a remedy because it fails to meet the contract's
economic objectives. In such cases, a remedy is required to compel the defaulting party to
fulfil his contractual obligations. The Specific Relief Act of 1963 is needed in this situation.
The act's second chapter, titled "Specific Performance of Contracts," offers relief to the
injured party. And, as previously stated, the circumstances in which the court grants specific
performance relief are discussed.

INJUNCTIONS

Many contracts are written in such a way that they do not allow for specific performance or
damages because they are ineffective. Preventive relief is granted in these circumstances. It is
granted by issuing an order, known as a "injunction," to the party in question, directing him
not to do a specific act or requiring him to perform a specific duty, referred to as mandatory
injunction.198 Part-3 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 allows for this type of relief. 199
Jurists have defined the term "injunction" in various ways. 200 “Injunctions are judicial
processes by which one who has infringed or threatens to infringe on another's legal or
equitable rights is restrained from continuing or commencing such wrongful act,” according
to Burney. Lord Halsbury's definition is more trustworthy. Injunctions, he explained, are "a
judicial process in which a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a specific act or
thing." 202 The following three basic features of an injunction can be easily deduced from
these definitions: it is a judicial process, the relief that can be obtained is a restraint or
prevention, and the act that is prevented or restrained is wrongful.

40
It is a discretionary remedy that aims to compel the fulfilment of negative promises.
Injunctions are always issued in the person of the plaintiff. It isn't a part of the house. It's a
type of restraining order that prevents someone from breaking a contract. Only in extreme
cases do courts use their power to issue injunctions.

In most cases, an injunction is only issued when irreparable harm to an individual's rights
would result otherwise.

When the court sees that some act has been done or is being done that will cause irreparable
harm to the party seeking the injunction.

When an injury is deemed irreversible and cannot be adequately compensated through a

monetary award.

The danger of property annihilation is sufficient to demonstrate hopeless damage. The

respondent consented to sing only at the offended party's auditorium during the agreement
time frame in Lumley v. Wrangler203. The respondent, then again, broke the agreement by
consenting to sing for another auditorium during the term of the agreement. She additionally
declined to perform at the offended parties' theater. The court decided that the respondent
could be banished from singing in another theater if an order was given against him. The
court explained in Jaggard v. Sawyer, 204 that orders can be restrictive or compulsory. A
prohibitory order may likewise be conceded to forestall the break of a negative agreement or
a negative specification in an agreement, as indicated by the court. A required order propel
the positive presentation of a demonstration and can be utilized to put things just after an
agreement break.

CHAPTER-3

FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS IN THE

MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES

41
A contract is believed to be a correlative set of rights and obligations for the parties that
would be worthless if the rights flowing from it were not enforced. Where there is a right,
there is a cure, according to the Latin proverb "Ubi jus, ibi remedium." In law, there is a
contrast between a right and a remedy when viewed conceptually. A remedy requires the
existence of a right (in the sense of a cause of action). This is why it has been claimed that for
every wrong, there is a solution. Furthermore, the cures are seen as the "goals" and the
procedures as the "means" to achieve those ends. When a contract is broken, the remedy of
"damages" is the first that comes to the parties' minds as a result of the breach.

The party who has been wronged may demand compensation from the party that has broken
the contract. To put it another way, one may say that rights are the primary requirement,
whereas remedies are the secondary. Breach of contract occurs when the parties fail to meet
the primary obligation of a contract, whereas failure to perform the secondary obligation
results in the parties being held accountable for damages. The purpose of the law is to make it
easier to justify rights and to provide remedies when obligations are broken. Contractual
damages were created to pay "for monetary loss necessarily emanating from the breach." At
common law, the fundamental rule governing the award of damages is that they must be
compensatory in nature.

The most well-known standard overseeing the computation of compensatory harms in both
agreement and misdeed is that the offended party ought to be granted the financial aggregate
that, in the most ideal sense, addresses reasonable and sufficient remuneration for the
misfortune or injury endured because of the litigant's illegitimate lead. 6 While the hidden
reason is something similar in both agreement and misdeed law, the guidelines controlling its
application might contrast in explicit cases. To start, perceive that deciding harms in an
agreement is basically a down to earth action that isn't represented by any rigid standards.
The thorough standards should be to such an extent that they can offer approach to
arrangements most appropriate to giving a harmed offended party the measure of harms that
will most reasonably reward him for the misfortune he has encountered in explicit cases. 8 It
may be hard to find out the specific measure of misfortune or damage that has happened in a
given circumstance sometimes.

At least where damages are founded on carelessness, the standard of remoteness in contract is
thought to be narrower. The concept of remoteness is used by courts to limit the amount of

42
damages that a defendant must pay to the plaintiff. It may be necessary to make some
educated guesses in order to calculate the exact amount of loss or damage. The court will
strive for as much precision as the subject matter allows. In truth, it is sometimes simply a
matter of impression on the available material. Regardless of these factors, the plaintiff must
at the very least provide a rational basis for determining damages. When an aggrieved party
seeks damages as a result of a breach, the court is required to consider the requirements of the
law as well as the circumstances surrounding the contract. Furthermore, the amount of
damages is determined by the type of loss suffered by the aggrieved party as a result of the
violation. In that situation, the court would first determine the damages suffered before
determining their monetary value. Because contract law is always believed to be at the core
of commercial concerns, the debate of the measure of damages in contract will be given more
weight. In order to recover damages for breach of contract, the following elements must be
established: A breach of contract has occurred; Causation, i.e., the defendant's breach has
caused a loss to the plaintiff; The loss suffered by the plaintiff is the direct result of the
breach and is not too remote; and The plaintiff has acted reasonably in mitigating his or her
loss.

The offended party bears the weight of confirmation in association with the initial three rules,
while the litigant bears the weight of verification corresponding to the fourth factor (inability
to relieve). Where misfortune can't be handily estimated, like loss of possibility, the norm of
verification shouldn't be as severe, however it by and large relies upon the equilibrium of
likelihood. On the equilibrium of probabilities, an offended party's weight is to demonstrate
basically the level of his misfortune or injury. In the event that an offended party tries to
recuperate in excess of an ostensible sum in such an activity, he should effectively
demonstrate harms that can be surveyed, which implies a misfortune or injury that can be
estimated in money related terms. The most widely recognized decision standard, as for
harms at customary law for break of agreement, has been expressed by the court for a
situation 13 as follows: "The standard of the precedent-based law is that where a party
supports a misfortune by reason of a break of agreement, he is to be set in a similar
circumstance, with separate realities.

DAMAGE IS ATTRACTED BY INJURY.

43
In one case, C. J. Holt made some excellent observations in this regard, stating that “every
injury attracts damages.” Damages are not only monetary; an injury draws damage even if a
person's legal right is harmed as a result of it. For a better grasp of the concept, consider the
following examples: - Even though a person does not lose a single coin as a result of the
comments spoken against him, he might launch a lawsuit for slanderous words; or

Even though it does not cause him any harm, a person might sue another for riding over his
land because it is regarded an intrusion on his property and the other has no right to be there;
or

Even though a strike to the ear costs nothing, a person can pursue a lawsuit for bodily injury
and other damages.

Violation of rights that is actionable in and of itself Because the subject of the cause of action
for recovery of damages is so broad, it's difficult to give a specific description. As a result,
defining the boundaries of a damages case might be difficult. With the rising complexities of
modern culture, conflict of rights is bound to become more widespread, resulting in new
violations of established rights. As a result, certain well-established rules establishing the
relationship between cause of action and damages must be explained here.

SPECIAL DAMAGES PROOFS ARE REQUIRED.

Aside from the legal damages that the law presumes in every case of violation of right, the
plaintiff must prove considerable actual financial or other losses or damages that come from
the defendant's wrongful behaviour. “In any scenario, if the plaintiff suffers no serious losses
and simply a denial of a legal right that is justified in an action, there will be no monetary
damages experienced, therefore only nominal damages will be granted and no pecuniary
compensation will be allowed.” However, in the event that considerable damages have
occurred as a result of the defendant's illegal behaviour, the plaintiff is entitled to
compensation.” As a result, the court determined that a plaintiff is allowed to claim for
damages if he is unfairly blocked in the exercise of his legal right of collection, because the
plaintiff has an exclusive right of collection in this situation. In one case, the court ruled that
if the master of the ship refuses to sign the bill of lading without an endorsement as to the
damages sought, it is regarded a mistake for which full compensation and damages may be
awarded. The plaintiff's complaint cannot be dismissed in its whole solely because he alleges
significant losses but is unable to show them, and he should be allowed to recover at least

44
nominal damages. In circumstances when the plaintiff is unable to prove real damages, the
same logic applies.

REQUISITION OF AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL

OBLIGATIONS

The act of interfering with contractual duties requires the defendant to act in such a way that
the plaintiff is unable to fulfil his commitments. He has been barred from not just completing
his contract, but also from benefiting from the contractual right that exists in his favour.

Obtaining a contract violation

In a well-known case80, the English Court of Appeal reviewed the law governing breach of
contract and concluded that purposefully and without valid cause, provoking a person to
violate a contract with another should be regarded a specific violation. Furthermore, the
Queen's Bench upheld this premise in another case. 81 The rule was then upheld by the
House of Lords in several other decisions more than a century later. As a result, Lord
McNaughton stated the rule as follows: “A willful infringement of a legal right constitutes a
cause of action.” Interfering with legally recognised contractual relationships is a violation of
legal rights if there is no appropriate cause for the interference. 83 For a better understanding
of the ruling principle, it is necessary to analyse the brief facts of that case in which the entire
law controlling breach of contract was reviewed. The following are the circumstances of the
case: “In this case, there was a firm (plaintiff) of printers and publishers, and all of the firm's
employees were obliged to sign an undertaking that they would not join any other trade
union.” However, some employees violated the order and became members of the National
Society of operative printers and assistants. As a result, the firm chose to fire one of
employees who disregarded the undertaking, but he filed a grievance with the union. In
punishment for those employees who continued to work for the plaintiff, the union went on
strike and enlisted the help of other trade unions (who were concerned in supplying the raw
material to the plaintiff).

After Bowaters Sales Ltd. (who were the offended parties' crude material providers)
communicated their reluctance to convey any material to the offended party, the organization
chose not to press their representatives to coordinate in the conveyances, bringing about the
organization's provisions to the offended party stopping, bringing about a break of the
agreement between the organization and the offended party. The organization exhorted the
offended party that "Their Co. is banned from finishing their agreement by the activity of the

45
worker's guilds which has put an end to any of your paper being stacked at and conveyed
from Bowater‟s Mersey Paper Mills, Ellesmere Port. The Company anticipates that this
pressure should proceed and perhaps ascend until the agreement is removed, so, all in all they
will not be able to make conveyances under the agreement.

Thus, the offended parties have mentioned a directive restricting the association's authorities
from actuating or requesting a break from Bowater's Sales Ltd., just as harms, and have
documented an application for interlocutory help. The Trial Judge, Upjohn, J., wouldn't give
an order, expressing that there was never any verification of the litigants or their
representatives making an immediate move with the purpose of actuating or making
Bowaters Company break their current agreements with the offended party. Albeit the normal
outcome of the worker's guilds' activity was to propel the Bowaters Company to break their
agreement with the offended parties, such activity was considered inadequate to comprise or
actuate a break of agreement.

While maintaining Upjohn, J's. request, the Court of Appeal evaluated the caselaw on the
issue and set up the accompanying standards: "Aside from an intrigue to harm, legal
demonstrations of an outsider don't comprise an activity meddling with authoritative rights,
regardless of whether finished with the item and expectation of causing such a break." It has
no effect whether the 141 demonstrations are submitted with noxiousness or sick aim. Acts
that are legitimate all by themselves are not considered unlawful on the grounds that the
culprit was spurred by vindictiveness or had an awful goal."

In this manner, the fundamental elements of a break of commitment securing a break of

agreement are as per the following:- When an outsider, with information on the agreement
and the aim to acquire its break, straightforwardly actuates or gets one of the agreement's
gatherings to break it, it is said that the outsider is obtaining a break of agreement.

There might be a circumstance where an outsider with information on the agreement and the
plan to penetrate it does as such not by straightforwardly striking the agreement breaker's
brain, but rather by genuinely keeping the party or in any case making it incomprehensible
for him to play out his agreement, for instance, by breaking his important instruments and
hardware. For this situation, it's not difficult to conclude that the outsider is working with the
infringement of agreement.

Another circumstance that can be examined in such manner is the point at which an outsider
goes into an agreement with the agreement breaker such that the outsider knows is conflicting

46
with the agreement, suggesting that the outsider is acquiring the break of the commitment, for
instance, when X pays for and gets conveyance of another bicycle from Y, realizing that it is
offered to him in break of the agreement. 87 The irregularity of the agreement into which
they drew in may start without the information on the agreement's outsider, yet on the off
chance that it proceeds afterward becomes known to the party, it is considered a noteworthy
impedance.

On the off chance that an outsider participates in noteworthy obstruction with the agreement
with information on the agreement, against the purpose of the two players, and without their
insight, the outsider is considered to have acted in a way that would bring about a break.

At the point when an outsider with information on the agreement and purpose to break it
prompts the worker of one of the gatherings to get the break of his agreement of business,
given that the break of agreement framing the supposed subject of impedance truth be told
happens as an important outcome of the break of agreement of business.

CONTRACTUAL MALICE IMMATERIAL

Except in the instance of a marriage contract, guilty intent is irrelevant in determining

damages for breach of contract. Bad intentions have no bearing on cases of contract breach.
For example, if X has entered into a contract with Y for the delivery of a certain quantity of
mustered oil, and in that case "X" has failed to pay "Y" the money due under a bond executed
by him, the consequences are the same, implying that the failure to deliver or pay is a breach
of contract. Because the amount of damages is confined to the direct pecuniary loss resulting
from the breach of contract, the defaulting party's intent is completely ignored in such
instances.

In a violation of contract, malice is not admitted.

The existence of delinquency on the part of the guilty party cannot change the rule of law by
which damages for breach of contract are to be measured, and only the existence of
delinquency on the part of the guilty party can modify the rule of law by which damages for
breach of contract are to be measured.

95 “The damages in actions for breach of contract are ordinarily confined to losses that can
be appreciated in money, with the exception of the case of breach of promise of marriage;
damages that are not capable of being so estimated, such as injury to feeling or displeasure,
are not allowed,” wrote Baron Alderson,.L.J. in a case96. The premise is that if one party

47
fails to perform his contract, the other may do it for him as closely as possible and charge him
for the costs incurred.” However, where there are elements of fraud, aggression, or evil
purpose, the injured party has the option of initiating a tort suit, in which case he can present
evidence of such matters, allowing him to claim damages on a different basis. 97 Following
the preceding discussion, it is necessary to explore the essentials of the foundation of
culpability for breach of contract in order to gain a better understanding of the subject.

IN SUITS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: PARTIES WHO MAY SUE? Remedies

for

Breach Contract:

There must be at least two parties in order for a contract to be valid, namely the promisor and
the promisee. They enter into a contract on the idea that both parties are obligated to do their
role in its entirety. It means that if one party fails to perform, the other has the right to sue for
specific performance, damages, or both, depending on the nature and subject matter of the
contract. This right is conferred on the party by law, not by any express relationship in the
contract itself.

Damages as a form of personal redress

The goal of bringing a lawsuit for breach of contract damages is to seek personal redress
against the defendant who has a contractual or other connection with the plaintiff. In the
event of a violation of contract, personal action, or action in personam, is frequently taken.
The plaintiff and defendant in such a case are the person who has been injured and the person
who has committed the improper act. In such a case, the plaintiff seeks compensation from
the defendant for the loss he has experienced as a result of the defendant's breach of contract
or infringement of his rights.

What is the difference between a damages remedy and a particular performance relief?

The reason for activity is a break of agreement, while specific execution alleviation is just a
consolation and not a reason for activity. Thus, explicit execution help might be allowed or
denied. Regardless of whether to give specific execution help is completely up to the
carefulness of the court being referred to. With regards to recovering harms, there are two
ways of thinking. From one viewpoint, it very well may be contended that the offended party
should initially exhibit his readiness and ability to play out his piece of the legally binding
commitment to recuperate harms for break of agreement. It demonstrates that the offended

48
party's on the right track to look for harms for break of agreement has consistently been
condition point of reference to his status and want to do his part.

On the off chance that he doesn't follow this arrangement, he will be banished from
recuperating any harms for break of agreement.

The help of harms, then again, is a customary law cure accessible to any party that has
endured misfortunes because of the other party's nonperformance or break of an agreement.
Explicit execution help, which is an impartial cure in English law, is represented in India by
the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and is past the subject of this paper. As indicated by Section 73
of the Indian Contract Act 1872, a party who experiences a break has the option to look for
pay from the party who has broken the agreement for any misfortune or harm he has endured
because of the break. The two treatments are not aggregate; rather, they are integral to each
other. The cure of explicit execution is an unrivaled kind of cure, and an offended party in a
suit for explicit execution of the agreement can't be denied remuneration for the agreement's
break notwithstanding the particular execution, yet the offended party can't request explicit
execution of the agreement in a suit for recuperation of harms.

The remedy of damages for breach of contract is considered to be the universal remedy, and
the court only awards particular performance in exceptional circumstances in order to provide
total justice to the plaintiff. As a result, every violation of contract can result in a lawsuit for
damages or specific performance. With the aforementioned distinction in mind, it is
reasonable to conclude that the proper person to claim for damages is the person whose right
to demand contract performance has been breached.

The “Plaintiff” must be the final victim of a contract breach.

The person who is the final victim of the other party's violation of contract has the right to
sue for damages for the breach of contract. Although it is now widely established that a
lawsuit might be brought on behalf of a third party or someone who is not a contract party. It
is also a well-established principle that no action can be brought unless there has been a
breach of contractual right, and that the person who suffers damages, i.e. whose legal
contractual rights have been violated, is the only person who can bring a damages action
against the person who is responsible for the breach of contract. The question here is whether

49
a person who is in a natural or contractual relationship with the injured person has the right to
sue for damages.

Minor's position and Damages Suit

When it comes to the situation of the minor, the first question that comes to mind is whether a
minor can be a party to a contract. The law is very clear and sound on this topic, as any
agreement made with a minor is regarded void. The question is whether a minor can sue for
damages for breach of contract entered into by him or his guardian if he is unable to be a
party to the contract. It is important to remember the instance of Mohori Bibee, which has put
to rest all uncertainties about minors' contracts.

In this example, the Privy Council decided that an agreement can't be upheld against a minor.
Notwithstanding, it is indistinct whether, as a promisee, he has the privilege to sue the
promisor for break of agreement. The response to this inquiry is reliant upon whether the
whole thought purportedly gained from the minor has been executed and the minor has no
further obligation to play out the agreement. Moreover, regardless of whether the game plan
is to assist the minor or not is a factor. In this way, where the minor has gotten the whole
thought and the advantage of the agreement has additionally been appreciated by the
promisor, and where all that still needs to be done is really for the minor's advantage, there
gives off an impression of being zero excuse to deny the minor the option to sue for harms for
break of agreement. It would be an incredible unfairness to the minor if it somehow managed
to be rejected. Then again, permitting a child to raise doubt about the legitimateness of an
exchange wherein he has gotten the whole thought is completely to subvert the objectives of
equity. Minority is an individual advantage that nobody might exploit, yet the minor himself
can disavow his agreement, which ties the other party. Minority is truly seen as a debilitation
instead of an advantage to him, and it can some of the time neutralize him.

After an extended conversation in a case126, it was concluded that if the mortgagee has
gotten the thought, a minor can guarantee for the authorization of a home loan made in
support of himself. In a prior case127, a similar court held that an adolescent can be the payee
under a promissory note and in this manner dispute for the cash owed under it. Note that there
is no arrangement in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, that keeps a minor from going into an
agreement, and that if a minor, in line with the promisor, pays cash, plays out some help, or

50
shuns playing out any demonstration, if it is of worth, that would be adequate thought for the
guarantee, which could be implemented by the minor through damascus.

In the event that a child goes into a help contract and plays out his obligations, he has the
privilege to dispute for the compensation owed to him. On account of a break of a marriage
contract, a similar rationale applies; a minor might sue a grown-up for break of the guarantee,
however the more seasoned party can't sue the minor on such a guarantee. These ideas were
used for a situation where not really set in stone that a minor reserved the privilege to sue for
harms for the break of a marriage contract made by the minor's dad while the individual in
question was as yet a minor. In such examples, the right of a minor's dad or gatekeeper to go
into an apprenticeship or marriage contract is perceived. Be that as it may, in these
circumstances, the two players should sign into an agreement for the minor's government
assistance; really at that time would these agreements be respected certifiable. In one model,
it was held that a minor can't be compelled to play out their part of an agreement without
wanting to, regardless of whether it be an agreement for individual assistance or an
agreement for marriage, and that the court can't command the particular presentation of such
agreements. Nonetheless, if the agreement is enforceable, different results will be something
very similar, like harms and culpability in case of a break of agreement.

Position of lunatics and Suit for damage

According to the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the rule of law that applies to minors also
applies to lunatics and other mentally ill people. In terms of contractual responsibilities, the
Privy Council's ruling in the matter of Mohori Bibee131 is considered a comprehensive code
in and of itself. However, the court later declared in a case132 that if a lunatic enters into a
contract, the deal is regarded void and unenforceable. As a result, all transactions by lunatics
are void, and a lunatic is in the same position as a minor, and using the analogy of cases in
which sales against minors without their being properly represented have been held to be
void, sales against lunatics who have not been properly represented have been held to be
void, and there is no need to set aside the sales; I However, there are some people who,
despite having no beneficial interest in the contract, can suit on it because of their legal
standing.

Agents' positions and Suit for monetary compensation

51
When a person signs a contract as an agent, he is hired to perform any act on behalf of the
principal or to represent him in dealings with third parties. The original party will continue to
be the principle; he is the only one who cares about the contract's success. The primary is the
one in whom the right to suit is truly vested. However, the agency is linked to the interest,
which means that if an agent enters into a contract and has any stake in the subject matter of
the breach, or if he has particular property or interest, he can sue in his own name, even
though he contracted for a principal. It was observed133 and ruled by the court that if an
agent enters into a contract and has any interest in the contract, he can initiate a lawsuit in his
own name for breach of contract damages. An agent is deemed the principal to the extent of
his interest in such instances. However, in circumstances where an agent is expected to
function as a mediator for the sale and purchase of goods under a contract with the defendant,
but instead acts as a principal without the defendant's knowledge or approval, he will not be
able to claim for damages caused to him by the defendant.

Certain types of contracts, such as F.O.B (Free On Board) contracts, allow an agent to enter
into a contract with the other party, but his role in the contract is that of a principal, despite
the fact that he was working as an agent for the purchaser. If the seller with whom the agent
has made a purchase contract for his constituency fails to fulfil the contract, the agent has a
right of action for damages, and he is entitled to recover the losses.

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO

"DAMAGES"

A contract is not a piece of real estate. It's just a promise backed up by some sort of
consideration, for which the parties might seek either specific performance or damages. In a
contract, two parties agree to make an equitable trade. As a result, the monetary equivalent is
usually sufficient compensation in the event of a breach. As a general rule, it is advisable not
to compel the parties to do what they agreed to do in the contract. Specific performance of the
contract occurs when a party is ordered by the court to perform the contract in a specific
manner. Courts only award specific performance in exceptional circumstances. In the
majority of cases, monetary compensation is provided. Contract law has arisen as a means of
resolving conflicts between traders and businesspeople. These folks are mostly concerned
with the monetary value of items. As a result, money is frequently regarded as an adequate
solution. However, in circumstances where the parties' contract expressly states that, in
addition to real damages, an additional sum shall be paid as a penalty in the event of a breach

52
of contract, the question of whether the penalty should be enforced or not arises. As the state
has the authority to compel a desired behaviour from its inhabitants under threat of
punishment and penalty, the question here is whether it would be appropriate for the parties
to impose penalties on each other. This would be tantamount to usurping state power. This is
not acceptable. As a result, participants in a contract only have the right to be compensated
for damages.

For the sake of clarity, the observation of Ruxley's case156 should be mentioned here.
“Damages for breach of contract must reflect, as exactly as the circumstances allow, the loss
which the claimant has experienced because he did not get what he negotiated for,” the court
stated. Punishing the contract breaker is out of the question. Given this fundamental premise,
the court must finally decide the question of fact when determining the claimant's estimate of
damage. Because the law relating to damages for breach of contract has evolved almost
entirely in a commercial context, this criteria are usually based on the assumption that each
contracting party's interest in the contract is solely commercial, and that the loss resulting
from a breach of contract is purely measurable in economic terms.

IN THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT OF 1872, THE CONCEPT OF REMOTENESS

The repercussions of violation of contract are addressed in Chapter VI of the Indian Contract
Act. The idea of remoteness is dealt with under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act of
1872, which is based on the Hadley v. Baxendale principles. Section 73 establishes a general
principle that applies to all cases of contract breach resulting in loss of damages to one of the
contracting parties (who is considered an innocent party), whereas section 161 (responsibility
of bailee when goods are not returned) addresses only a specific type of breach of contract. In
summary, section 73 is concerned with the genus, whereas section 161 is concerned with the
species. As a result, section 161 should be seen as only an extension or illustration of section
73, with no need to repeat the criterion. The court decided in Kishan lal Shrilal Patwa v.
Union of India318 that if compensation can be given at all, the discussion will be limited to
the conditions set forth in section 73.

Compensation for losses or damages incurred as a result of a contract breach

“At the point when an agreement is broken,319 the party who endures because of such break
is qualified for get remuneration from the party who has broken the agreement, for any
misfortune or harm caused to him in this way, which normally emerged in the standard
course of things from such break, or which the gatherings knew, when they made the

53
agreement, to probably result fr Such pay isn't to be conceded for any misfortune or harm
endured because of the break in the far off or backhanded sense. At the point when an
agreement like obligation is caused and not released, any individual harmed because of the
inability to release it is qualified for a similar pay from the defaulting party as though the
defaulting party had resolved to release it and had penetrated his agreement. While figuring
the misfortune or harm brought about by a break of agreement, the choices accessible for
settling the inconvenience made by the agreement's non-execution should be thought of.

Appraisal of Section 73

At the point when a party playing out an agreement neglects to satisfy the agreement's
guideline (which might be severe or only require the activity of sensible consideration) inside
the time period determined, the agreement will be penetrated. Harms for break of agreement
are normally planned to reward the petitioner for the misfortune, harm, or mischief brought
about because of the infringement. Business misfortunes are the most well-known reason for
contract break claims. Harms for break of agreement, then again, are not generally bound to
financial reward. In agreements, harms may likewise be given to make up for actual harms to
an individual or property, or for the passing of a property characteristic (like solace or
protection). Regardless of whether this hasn't brought down its worth, it's as yet awesome for
the issue and, at times, frustration. Area 73 arrangements with circumstances in which pay is
expected for misfortunes or harms brought about by an infringement of agreement. At the
point when an agreement is broken, the party who has been hurt by the break is qualified for
remuneration from the other party (who has broken the agreement) for any misfortunes or
harms he has encountered because of the break, which normally emerged in the ordinary
course of things. As recently expressed, this part is decisive of customary law as to harms,
along these lines it tends to be accepted that the law forces a commitment, or suggests the
words, that harms should be paid in case of an agreement break. Besides, it is feasible to say
that this guideline is clarified in basic terms in this part.

This arrangement just applies where there is a break of agreement; it implies that the break of
agreement should be displayed before the issue of harms might be tended to. On the off
chance that the court discovers that no break happened, it won't grant harms exclusively
based on an agreement infringement. Moreover, any individual guaranteeing harms for break
of agreement should exhibit to the court that if the other party had not penetrated the
agreement, he would have executed or was prepared to play out his piece of the commitment

54
coming about because of the agreement. The fundamental reason of 211 harms for break of
agreement is that the harms are granted distinctly to place the harmed party in a similar
circumstance as he would have been if the injury for which he grumbles had not happened.
The expression "harm" is at times depicted as a detriment experienced by an individual
because of another's demonstration or default. To be more accurate, "harms" can be
characterized as "pay for the normal and plausible results of a break, for example those that
could reasonably be expected." Damages fill compensatory as opposed to reformatory needs,
and this idea applies to the two misdeeds and agreements. There will be no financial
culpability until the court confirms that the party asserting a break is qualified for harms. The
court should initially decide if the respondent is at risk, and afterward survey the degree of
that commitment; by and by, the litigant has no responsibility until that assurance is made.
This segment is joined by a clarification, which has all the earmarks of being clear as crystal.
It stresses the thought that an offended party looking for harms should bend over backward to
limit their misfortunes or harms.

The court deduced on account of State of Rajasthan v. Nathu Lal that this arrangement shows
that no pay is to be allowed for any far off or circuitous misfortune or harms brought about
because of the break. It implies that the option to sue is dependent upon the presence of
verification of the break. There have been a couple of extra choices where it has been tracked
down that this segment applies a similar methodology when a semi legally binding
responsibility has been penetrated. The offended party should set up his misfortunes, and in
the event that they can't be demonstrated, proper remuneration is given dependent on the
proof introduced to the court. Thus, the Hadley v. Baxendale standards can be found in the
initial two passages of this part.

The thought has two segments to it with regards to decreasing the repercussions of an
offense. Similarly, this part builds up two rules. This proviso expresses that remuneration is
recoverable for any misfortune or harm that emerges normally over the span of things
because of the break; or that the gatherings comprehended would happen because of the
break at the hour of the agreement.

It implies that, as a matter of first importance, if the gatherings have explicitly or certainly
concurred on the results, they should be followed. The conduct of explicit gatherings in their
conversations and arrangements can be derived. In the event that the gatherings don't

55
accommodate themselves, the law can't surrender despondently. Thus, a line should be
attracted somewhere to outline the ramifications. Agreements are ascribed to the law so that
they as often as possible happen in rehearses.

Thus, the subsequent choice is to treat the agreement and maybe they were normal in regular
day to day existence. "Albeit the agreement act makes separate arrangement for the results for
each situation, the standard set down concerning the proportion of harms is something
similar, in particular, the party in break should make pay in regard of the immediate
outcomes moving from the break and not in regard of the misfortune or harm I the Supreme
Court noted in the Pannalal case, alluding to custom-based law standards and segment 73.
The standard is established on the expansive reason that the party who has experienced a
misfortune ought to be put in a similar circumstance as though the party in break had finished
his agreement or satisfied his obligation, to the extent cash reward permits.

For Aslhing's situation, the Supreme Court tracked down that a party's standing ends the
agreement, but the capacity to look for harms remains. Subsequently, the project worker's
exclusion for holding a benefit making office under the state government will end when the
agreement is ended. Subsequently, the main standard can be portrayed as "objective," while
the subsequent guideline can be depicted as "abstract." Because the principal rule puts
together obligation with respect to a sensible man's premonition of the misfortune that will
definitely come from the infringement of the agreement, yet the subsequent principle puts
together culpability with respect to the gatherings' information on the reasonable aftereffect
of the break at the time the agreement was made. Besides, the offended party bears the weight
of evidence in showing that harm has happened and deciding the measure of misfortune to be
changed over into cash.

At the point when this weight isn't met, a case for harms is probably going to be excused.
Remuneration for misfortune or harm can be gotten under Section 73. that happened normally
because of such break; or which the party knew was probably going to emerge because of
such break at the time the agreement was agreed upon.

DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

56
The second paragraph of section 73 addresses the situations in which compensation is not to
be paid for any remote or indirect loss or damage caused by the breach. It simply means that
a party cannot recover damages for any remote or indirect losses incurred as a result of a
contract breach, but those damages can be recovered if the losses are caused by special
circumstances that the parties are aware of. If the loss resulting from a breach of contract
does not occur naturally, but rather as a result of some unusual circumstances, the person who
caused the breach can be held liable if those unusual circumstances were brought to his
attention at the time the contract was made. He cannot be held liable for a particular loss if he
was unaware of the unique circumstances that led to it. It means that the plaintiff can only
recover damages arising from unusual circumstances if the unusual circumstances are known
to the person who is responsible for the breach of contract.

In order to apply the second rule mentioned above, there are a few key questions that must be
answered before the special damage claim can be considered recoverable. The following are
the questions:

 Whether there are any special circumstances that apply to the breach of contract, and
if so, what are they?
 Whether the damages were caused by the breach of contract, and if so, what were
they?
 Is there a common understanding between the parties at the time of contracting? If
that's the case, what exactly is that common knowledge? And
 What may the court reasonably infer was in the minds of the parties as the likely
outcome of a contract breach, assuming the parties had applied their minds to the
possibility of such a breach?
 All of these questions can be answered and comprehended under a single heading:
special damages.

IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIAL DAMAGES

Unique harms are those harms that are excellent in nature and hence should be guaranteed
explicitly and given stringently. These harms are of such a nature that the law can't gather
them from the idea of the demonstration since they don't happen in the ordinary course of
occasions. Subsequently, exceptional harms are those that emerge because of the offended

57
party's novel conditions. They are not recoverable except if the uncommon conditions are
brought to the respondent's consideration, with the goal that the chance of an exceptional
misfortune is considered by the two players. It implies that if the litigant is ignorant of the
unique conditions, no uncommon harms can be recuperated. It is essential for the offended
party to inform the litigant against whom extraordinary harms are looked for of any unique
conditions (associated with the agreement).

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE KNOWLEDGE IS ESSENTIAL.

The standard of lawful law is that an individual more likely than not expected or information
on some unacceptable he is submitting to be expected to take responsibility for it.
Accordingly, the obligatory guideline is that "information" of the extraordinary conditions
under which the Hammond v. Bussey, (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 79. 221 contact is made is required,
and it can even be supposed to be a sine qua non for guaranteeing uncommon harms. Be that
as it may, the critical inquiry is whether simple information on conditions involves obligation
for harms emerging from those conditions where the party who penetrates the agreement
concurred between the gatherings submits the break.

In the milestone British Columbia Saw Mill Co. case, Justice Willes gave an exceptionally
pleasant response to this question.351 Justice Willes mentioned the accompanying observable
fact: "The simple reality of "information" can't build the obligation." It implies that
essentially imparting unique conditions without tolerating them may not be sufficient to set
up liability. Just when the transporter's information is needed as a feature of the agreement is
it important. In actuality, information must be proof of misrepresentation or of the two
players' mindfulness that the agreement is established on the conditions that are imparted."

The agreement's composers were amazingly careful while organizing provisos, terms, and
conditions. Those agreements have an express proviso for break of agreement, just as
repercussions for breaks of agreement and, at times, a statement for extraordinary harms that
can be mentioned in surprising conditions. At the point when the specific conditions are
inside the litigant's information, such cases give pretty much nothing or little trouble in
ascertaining the specific measure of harms for break of agreement or evaluating the degree of

58
commitment of the respondent. Mayne's perspective in such manner is basic and has the right
to be thought of. "The law thinks about that each and every individual who breaks an
agreement should pay for the normal outcomes of that break, and by and large, states what
those results are?" he clarified. Can the other party, by just illuminating him regarding some
of extra outcomes that the law would not have impliedly lengthened his obligation to the full
degree of that load of results that are not found inside the ambit of any agreement between
the gatherings, extend his obligation to the full degree of that load of outcomes that are not
found inside the ambit of any agreement between the gatherings?

To respond to this inquiry truly, the respondent has the position to explicitly disavow such
commitment. Nonetheless, instead of the party looking to grow the commitment of another,
the onus of making an agreement might fall on him who simply attempts to restrict his own
culpability inside its unique constraints. This contention was acknowledged, and it was
applied with full power to conditions when a typical transporter couldn't reject the obligation
that was squeezed upon him, and may even not be able to acknowledge any further
compensation for satisfying it." The trouble with this standard is that it inaccurately infers a
constant consistency in the effortlessness of the results, when indeed there is none. Since the
consequences of a similar direct might be normal in one situation however not in another.
Accordingly, this thinking appears to completely dismiss the reasoning of the standard "every
individual who breaks the agreement will pay for the inescapable outcomes." subsequently, if
excellent conditions are not plainly given in the agreement terms, harms might be surveyed
based on a deduced information on unique conditions, which the litigant might be viewed as
mindful of. This contention has recently been talked about top to bottom in this part.
Accordingly, there is no requirement for additional conversation regarding this matter.
Continuing on to the accompanying issue, it very well might be concluded from a perusing of
segment 73 that the third para of this segment manages remuneration for neglecting to
perform liabilities like those forced by contract. Just said, this section is about semi
agreements. Agreement suggested in law alludes to lawful connections that look like
agreements.

It's anything but a genuine agreement, or as it is known, a consensual agreement dependent

on the gatherings' understanding. These obligations are made by a lawful fiction. This is the

59
reason it might become important to consider one individual capable to another, regardless of
whether there is no arrangement between them, exclusively on the premise that else he would
keep cash or another advantage to which the law believes the other individual to be entitled,
or exclusively on the premise that without such responsibility or obligation the other party
would be u There is no compelling reason to go over this idea inside and out here on the
grounds that there is a whole section on it in this theory. Thus, Section 73's clarification
should be analyzed here, as any clarification associated with an arrangement is viewed as a
vital part of the segment.

EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73

"In deciding the misfortune or harm beginning from a break of agreement, the means which
existed of curing this bother made by the non-execution of the agreement should be
considered," says the clarification to Section 73. Practically speaking, this clarification has
been hard to comprehend; the expressions "which existed of helping the inconvenience" have
seemed questionable.

This translation infers that the harmed individual should embrace sensible strides to limit
harms because of the break, to hold his misfortunes to a negligible. The standard referenced
in this clarification is most generally found in agreements for the deal or acquisition of
merchandise, for instance, if the purchaser will not take conveyance, the dealer should
attempt to exchange the products at the common market cost, and he may then recuperate as
harms from the defaulting purchaser the contrast between the value he understood and the
value he would have gotten u basically, this thinking sets up a commitment to relieve hurts.
In the event that the vender doesn't exchange the items and his misfortune is compounded by
the market's decay or some other factor, he isn't qualified for remuneration for the expanded
misfortune. A.K.A.S. Jamal v. Moolla Dawood Sons and Co. is a notable expert in such
manner, and the legal board of trustees' discoveries for this situation are significant. "It is
verifiable law that an offended party who sues for harms owes the obligation to take all
sensible way to restrict the misfortune coming about because of the break and can't guarantee
as harms any aggregate which is because of his own disregard," the legal panel expressed. Be
that as it may, the law decides the misfortune at the hour of the infringement. In the event that
the offended party might have done or effectively mitigated the harm around then, the litigant
is qualified to help it."

60
For another situation, four and a half months after the break, the merchandise were sold in a
falling business sector. The court decided that it was not sensible, and F.C.I. was simply
qualified for look for insignificant harms. Besides, the relinquishment of the sincere cash of
Rs. 1000 was considered to be satisfactory. 358 a similar guideline applies to the purchaser in
situations when a merchant won't finish the agreement; if the things are accessible from
another source, the purchaser should buy them; in the event that he doesn't, he will not be
able to recover any extra misfortunes brought about by his own carelessness.

"Harm moderation" is a trick all expression that alludes to an assortment of issues, some of
which are connected and others that are entirely inconsequential. Albeit these qualifications
have not been totally investigated in English law, isolating the numerous implications of this
term is basic for a more clear comprehension of the worries.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE

THE DAMAGE

If the comment made by Winn L.J. in a case412is seen in a broad sense, it is worth noting
that he opined that “he was not aware of any express statement in the cases, but it is implicit
in the principle, that if mitigating steps are taken despite a reasonable decision to do so, then
that will be in addition to the recoverable damage and not a set-off against t Jones v. Watney,
Combe, Reid & Co.413 is the first case that can be used to illustrate this situation. In this
case, the defendant argued that he was not liable in damages for the aggravation of the
plaintiff's foot injury as a result of her walking on it too soon after the accident. “To consider
all the circumstances of the case, the medical advice received, the need for action, the usual
or extraordinary character of what is actually done, and the precautions taken during the
doing of it,” Lush J. had instructed the jury. The injured person does not have to act with
perfect knowledge and ideal wisdom, but he or she cannot recover damages for injuries that
are truly the result of wanton, unnecessary, or careless behaviour on his part. If what is done
in a reasonable and careful manner adds to the injuries, it may be considered a natural result
of the accident.” The defendant was found to be responsible for the entire injury by the jury.

It is difficult to locate unambiguous examples of ineffective mitigation action that was not
initiated by the defendant under English law. The general principle, as stated, is analogous to,
and even a part of, the rule, met with the remoteness of damages, that a plaintiff's intervening
reasonable act to protect his interests, whether taken in the "agony of the moment" or not,
does not relieve the defendant of liability for the resulting loss.

61
EXPLANATION OF SECTION 73: “THE RULE OF DAMAGE MITIGATION”
APPRAISAL

In truth, the legislature will never be able to anticipate all of the situations that will happen in
the future. However, when writing the remedies for breach of contract in the Indian Contract
Act of 1872, the framers were alert, careful, and cautious enough for the language employed
in Section 73. That is why, in India, the duty to reduce damages in the event of a breach of
contract has been fully acknowledged and given forth in the explanation and illustration (b)
appended to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. “The measures which existed for
remedying the inconvenience created by the non-performance of the contract must be taken
into account when calculating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract,” it was
said there. Under English law, there is no practical application of the explanation's language.
Although the phrase "the means which existed of remedying this inconvenience" is not a
happy one, it has been interpreted by various high courts across the country to mean that a
person complaining of a breach of contract has a duty to use common sense and prudence and
take all natural and obvious steps available to minimise the loss resulting from the breach.
Furthermore, the Indian Contract Act, Section 73, provides for compensation in the event of a
contract breach. According to the explanation to Sec. 73, the plaintiff has the duty of proving
that he has taken all reasonable means to offset the loss caused by the breach of contract after
proving the breach of contract. If that was the case, it was his responsibility to explain how he
attempted to limit the losses. A person claiming damages for breach of contract has a duty
under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to minimise the losses.

When the legal position of India in the area of "damage mitigation" is compared to the law of
England, no significant differences can be identified. The only minor distinction that may be
mentioned here is that the norm in the explanation to section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, is applied with extreme caution and care. It can be deduced that it is applied in a stricter
and more severe manner than in England.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 73: “DAMAGES FOR CONTRACT BREACH”

To summarise, Hadley v. Baxendale establishes the type of damage, i.e. the proper subject of
damages, and excludes all other types as being too far away. The conclusion in this instance
was only concerned with determining the extent to which damages are remote. This
judgement has clarified that the term "remoteness of damages" is reserved for circumstances

62
in which the defendant disputes liability for specific consequences resulting from his breach,
in which case it will be helpful.

The other crucial point, which concerns the concept by which damages can be measured or
quantified in terms of money, has been aptly dubbed the question of damages measurement.
Courts have used the idea of restitutio in integrum in a number of cases dating back to at least
1848. It means that if the plaintiff has suffered damages that are not insignificant, he must be
returned to the position he would have been in if the damage had not occurred, to the extent
that money allows.

The preceding explanation has clarified that what is granted under the category of "damages
for breach of contract" is the plaintiff's loss, not the profit that the plaintiff may make if the
breach of contract had not occurred. Although Lord Sumner's wording in Hadley v.
Baxendale425 has been criticised on numerous occasions, particularly the expressions
"arising naturally" and "likely implications," the term "direct consequences" has established a
certain tendency in contract. 426 But one thing is certain: this phrase is only appropriate for
the causation element of remoteness. Many of the recommended solutions, in fact, have been
challenged. There was also a propensity to regard the rule established by the ruling as three
rules at first, then as two rules, the first dealing with ordinary cases and the second with cases
where unusual circumstances were known. The combination of these two issues, namely the
abundance of phraseology and the division of the rule into sections, caused confusion, and a
restatement of the rule for modern conditions became a practical necessity.

63
 CHAPTER-4

CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS: A

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND
PENALTY

As they travel to their destination jointly, sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, cannot be discussed separately. As a result, following a full examination of Section 73
in the previous chapter, it will be necessary to explore Section 74 in detail in order to clarify
the idea of "fairness and reasonableness in the computation of damages," as this section
establishes a somewhat different criterion. The rule is that if a sum is specified in a contract
as the amount to be paid in the event of a breach, whether or not it is a penalty, the party that
suffers the breach is entitled to reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount specified.
As a result, the indicated sum is the utmost limit of obligation. Compared to the English
system, this has a few advantages.

The clause eliminates the need to establish procedures to distinguish liquidated damages from
penalties. Furthermore, according to English law, the court must either accept or reject the
entire amount. The court in India does not have to reject the amount. It has the option of
accepting the amount or reducing it to a level that appears reasonable. Damages that represent
a liquidated demand payment in money are referred to as "liquidated damages." If the parties
to a contract have previously agreed on a sum of money to be paid to either party in the event
of a breach of the contract, whether or not actual damages have been proven, it is known as
liquidated or stipulated damages, which the party complaining of the breach is entitled to
recover. Liquidated damages are those that have been agreed upon and fixed by the parties. It

64
is the amount agreed upon by the parties in writing to be payable in the event of one of them
defaulting, and Section 74 applies to these damages.

The right to claim liquidated damages is enforceable under Section 74 of the Contract Act,
and if such a right is established, there is no need to calculate damages. When the parties
purposefully specify the amount of liquidated damages, there can be no inference that they
also intended to allow the party who has been harmed by the breach to ignore the sum
specified and instead claim a sum of money that was not ascertained or ascertainable at the
time of the breach. This sum may apply to all violations in some situations, but only to
specific breaches in others. In some circumstances, it will apply to either party's breach, but
in others, it will only apply to one party's breach. And, depending on whether one or both
parties are at fault, different payments may be prescribed for different breaches. The parties
to a contract rarely make provisions in the contract for the payment of damages in the event
of a breach. However, if such clauses are included in the contract at the time of its formation,
they have no bearing on the application of the rule that damages for breach are designed to
compensate for the plaintiff's actual loss. Essentially, it is an issue of contract drafting, as to
whether a sum set down in the contract should be regarded liquidated damages or a penalty.

If it is understood as a penalty, it cannot be recovered for a real endeavour to liquidate, that

is, to decrease the uncertainty of potential damages of an unknown amount to a certainty
where the sum may be collected. The genesis of the rule against penalties was in equity,
which would relieve against penalties by reducing them to the actual damage suffered, but it
was taken up and applied by the common law, which was then reinforced by statute. The
court will recognise the sum determined by the parties as liquidated damages if it is a genuine
pre-estimate of the loss that appears likely to be caused if the breach provided for occurs. It is
a question of construction that must be decided based on the terms and circumstances of each
individual contract, which must be determined at the time of contracting, not at the time of
the violation. 3 Furthermore, if the number is not an estimate of the likely damage that the
parties agreed to, the court will accept it because they agreed to limit the damages recovered
to an amount less than that which a breach would likely cause.

If the amount is fixed in terrorem, on the other hand, the court will view the provision as a
penalty and will not enforce it. The courts are not bound by the vocabulary used in the
construction of the terms "penalty" and "liquidated damages" when they are contained in a
contract, but they will analyse the substance rather than the form. The parties are free to refer

65
to the amount stated as "liquidated damages," but it will be considered as such if the court
believes it to be a penalty. In contrast, if the parties have designated this sum as a "penalty,"
but the court determines that it is a real pre-estimate of the loss, it will only be recognised as
"liquidated damages." Whether the agreed money is recovered from the infringing party is
determined by whether it is liquidated damages or a penalty. When losses can be collected as
liquidated damages or as a penalty is an issue of fact that the courts must decide based on the
facts and circumstances of each case. Because the law relating to liquidated damages and
penalties has a long history, a quick overview of its evolution over the centuries is important
for a better understanding of current law.

THE FORMATION OF MODERN LAW

The law was reinforced for today in a number of credible House of Lords and Judicial
Committee judgements at the turn of the nineteenth century.

The purpose of putting such clauses in agreements is to promote certainty, and in commercial
contracts, where parties have the ability to protect themselves, the court is likely to take the
view that what the parties have agreed should normally be upheld, and to avoid setting a
standard that would defeat that purpose.

The law was reinforced for today in multiple authoritative House of Lords and judicial
committee judgements at the turn of the century. Lord Dunedin reframed the principles for
determining whether a stipulated sum is liquidated damages or penalty in a series of "rules"
in, a brief review of the Ford Motor Company case is required. 29 In this situation, a car
manufacturer gives a dealer with a quantity of cars and spare parts on the condition that they
are not sold below list pricing. As "agreed damages," a sum of $ 50 was due for each breach.
The dealer was the one who broke the law. The amount fixed was determined to be a
punishment.

This type of case and rule underpins modern law.

More crucially, Kemble's case is pertinent here since the defendant committed to play for
four seasons at the Covent Garden theatre for $ 3 6s 8d per night. The contract stipulated that
if any party refused to carry out the agreement or any portion of it, the other party would be
required to pay $ 1000 in "liquidated damages." During the second season, the defendant
refused to perform. The stipulation was found to be punitive. The following statement by
Colman J has been considered a suitable modern description of what underlying the Dunlop

66
approach. “Whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be
resolved by asking whether the predominant contractual function of the provision at the time
of entering into contract was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the
innocent party for breach,” it said. By comparing the sum that would be payable on breach
with the loss that might be experienced if breach happened, the contractual role is deterrent
rather than compensating. Later, around the turn of the century, a judicial committee in the
Philips case backed their approach, while emphasising the importance of it being practical.
The House of Lords ruled that the amount agreed upon by the parties was a genuine estimate
of the potential damage and not a punishment. In this scenario, it was deemed reasonable to
use a calculation based on estimations of the loss of return on capital at a daily rate, the effect
of the delay on associated contracts, and higher costs. The significant section of Lord
Dunedin's remarks is worth addressing here.

He outlined a few key guidelines in this regard, which include the following: -

 It will be considered a punishment if the amount stated for it is excessive and

unconscionable in contrast to the most serious loss that may be proven to have
resulted from the breach.
 If the breach consists solely of failing to pay a sum of money, and the sum indicated is
larger than the quantity that should have been paid, it will be considered a penalty.
 When a single lump payment is payable as compensation for the occurrence of one or
more of multiple occurrences, some of which may result in significant and others
minor charges, it is considered that the money is in the nature of punishment.
 There is no reason why the required figure cannot be a true pre-estimate of harm,
given that the consequences of violation are such that perfect pre-estimation is nearly
impossible.
 Although all of these rules are merely presumptions as to the parties' intentions, and
they can be rebutted by evidence of a contrary intention arising from a review of the
contract as a whole37, they still have their own significance in terms of the distinction
between liquidated damages and penalty.

CONCEPT OF LEQUIDATED DAMAGES AND PENALTY UNDER LAW OF

CONTRACT IN INDIA

67
Exchanged harms are the dynamic aggregate named in the agreement, which the gatherings
have themselves determined, would be a reasonable remuneration for the break of the
agreement. It is a total which addresses a certifiable pre-gauge of the misfortune brought
about by the break, that is, of what is expected to place the offended party into as great a
situation as though the agreement had been performed. "Sold harms implies that it will be
taken as the aggregate which the gatherings have by contract evaluated as that will be paid,
whatever perhaps the genuine damages."40 Before adverting to the standard on which the
harms can be in all actuality, it is essential to go through the arrangements of Section 4 and 5
of Indian Contract Act, 1872, which manage the development of respective agreement. The
offer might be removed by a made an offer individual yet it must be removed before the
acknowledgment or regardless of whether it is acknowledged before it was imparted to him.
It is cardinal rule that the acknowledgment ought to be unlimited and total in case there is no
limiting, the agreement between the gatherings or then again if the acknowledgment is neither
total nor unrestricted, a party would not be qualified for harms. The following angle, which
must be investigated for giving of harms, is that the thought ought not be unlawful. The law
requires thought as well as demand legal thought. The item should likewise be legal. Sec. 23
of the Act, makes plainly a wrongdoing, which has unlawful thought, is void (illicit). This is
additionally seen that now and again, harms must be attested if based on terms of agreement
and if on schedule, term is fundamental fixing Sec. 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, sets
out a somewhat unique standard.

Section 74: “Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for”

“When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid
in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the
party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to
have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable
compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty
stipulated for.”

Explanation: - A stipulation for increased interest from the date of default may be a
stipulation by way of penalty.

Exception: - When any person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other Instrument of
the same nature, or under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the (Central
Government) or of any (State) Government, gives any bond for the performance of any

68
public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable, upon breach of the
condition of any such instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein.

Explanation: - A person who enters into a contract with Government does not necessarily
thereby undertake any public duty, or promise to do an act in which the public are interested.

PURPOSE OF SECTION 74

The reason for law in outlining the first area was to disregard court away with the
differentiation among punishment and exchanged harms and two diminish the courts of the
troublesome inquiry to which it gives rise. Essentially, the reason for sold harms is to
remunerate the harmed party for the misfortune endured. A break of agreement can never be
wellspring of benefit. The party who has endured misfortunes by break is made up for the
deficiency of his deal, so his assumptions emerging out of or made by the agreement can be
ensured. There are provisions in which agreement diminishes to composing an amount of
cash to be paid as exchanged harms, it implies that the reason behind composing such a
condition is to reject the option to guarantee an unsure amount of cash as harms.

The option to guarantee sold harms is enforceable under Sec. 74 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 and where right is found to exist, no inquiry of determining that harms truly emerges
under Section 73 of the Contract Act. It appears to be that assuming the gatherings have
intentionally determined the measure of exchanged harms, there can be no assumption that
they simultaneously expected to permit the party who has endured by the break to give an
upset by to the aggregate indicated and guarantee rather an amount of cash which was not
learned or ascertainable at the date of break. "Most likely, the aim of Legislature in changing
the part was to be inside its extension every one of the cases wherein people should be
calmed from the severe letter of their bond on the ground that the specification is of a
reformatory sort. While holding the language of the first segment, the Legislature essentially
reestablished the English Law for any cases not covered by it. Agreements falling inside that
part are inferentially announced to be of a board character, however in any case the law with
respect to them isn't influenced by the correction."

69
Beginning OF SECTION 74

The fundamental thought of specifying a proper total as exchanged harms starts from custom-
based law precept of harms. Sold harms are for the most part payable in the event of
agreements of dubious worth, where it isn't not difficult to evaluate the harms and choose the
measure of pay ahead of time. Here emerges an inquiry for example why, the courts permit
an offended party to recuperate exchanged harms, in this way expelling the legal appraisal
and granting harms? In the response to this inquiry, one might say that exchanged harms have
various benefits, for example,

 Sold harms make it doubtful that there will be significant debate between the
gatherings;
 Exchanged harms assist the respondent with knowing ahead of time what precisely his
obligation will be if there should arise an occurrence of break of agreement;
 Considering organization of equity, exchanged harms save legal time and costs in
choosing what harms ought to be allowed to the offended party;
 According to the plaintiff‟s perspective, exchanged harms keep away from the
expenses of prosecution and the danger of off base evaluation by the courts. Also,
additionally, whenever sold harms are there in the understanding, the party need not
to demonstrate his misfortune as indicated by the judicially forced norm, and most
likely limitations like distance and the known recoverability of particular sorts of
misfortunes.
 Notwithstanding the previously mentioned benefits, the courts are not threatening to
sold harms since they mirror the compensatory point of judicially surveyed harms for
example they are a certified pre-gauge of the total expected to place the offended
party into as great a situation as though the agreement had been performed.
 The above conversation makes unmistakably the idea of exchanged harms has arisen
because of its benefits to both the gatherings just as to the legal offices too.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 74

A. Legislative Changes
This section was amended in 1899, by Act IV of 1899. The amendment to the share
of addition of the words “or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of
penalty” after the words “in case of such breach” and the addition of the words “for
as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for” at the end of the first paragraph. The

70
 other additions made were the Explanation and the Illustrations, (d), (e), (f) and
(g).47 In the exception to the section, the word “State” it substituted for the word
“Provincial” by A.O., 1950.48 The explanation has been added to Sec.74 by the
Amending Act VI of 1899. It does not purport to make a new change in the law as
enunciated in the section, as it stood in 1872, but only explains and illustrates it. 49
Therefore, the connection that the explanation does not apply to the present case, in
as much as the Kabuliyat in question is dated much interior to the Amending Act of
1899, has no force in it.

B. The Underlying principle in Section 74

The underlying principle in section 74 is that where a sum is named in a contract as
the amount to be paid in case of breach, regardless whether it is a penalty or not, the
party suffering from breach is entitled to receive reasonable compensation not
exceeding the amount so named. 51 It means that the named sum constitutes the
maximum limit of liability and the court is bound to follow the same. More precisely,
it can be said that the court cannot go beyond that limit while awarding damages.
Moreover, the difference between liquidated damages and penalty has been abolished
in India. The court can grant reasonable compensation, but it should not exceed the
stipulated amount. The liberty which the court has in this regard is that it can knock
down only those agreements which are unconscionable and extravagant.52 And the
court has the latitude to reduce the amount to what appears to be reasonable
inparticular circumstances.53 Whether or not, the party has proved to have suffered
actual loss, is immaterial.

Advantages of the above-mentioned principle:-

Basically, the above mentioned principle has certain advantages over the English
system. These are as follows:-
 This principle dispenses with the necessity of laying down rules for distinguishing
liquidated damages from penalty.
 As per the English law, the court must either accept the amount as a whole or reject
it in its entirety, whereas in India, the courts need not to reject the amount.
 The courts in India may either accept the amount or reduce it to what appears
reasonable. The leading authority of Fateh Chand is worth mentioning here.

71
 It was observed by the Supreme Court in this case as follows: “Section 74 is clearly
an attempt to eliminate the somewhat elaborate refinement made under the English
common law in distinguishing between stipulations providing for payment of
liquidated damages and the stipulations in the nature of penalty.
The Indian legislature sought to cut across the web of the rules and presumptions
under the English common law by enacting a uniform principle applicable to all the
stipulations naming the amount to be paid in case of breach and stipulation is by way
of penalty.”
 The amount stipulated in the contract is not excessive, but it is a good attempt to
avoid litigation.
 A difficult task of assessment of compensation with precision can be easy now by
applying this principle.
 Another advantage of this principle is that the figures were provided by the parties
gives a good start to overcome the difficulty of proof. Vijay Engineers‟ case is a very
good example of this. Because the court in this case, had to reduce the amount
stipulated because neither that much loss was proved nor it was in the neighbourhood
of probable loss.

C. One party not to have the judgment power

Involved with the arrangement can't be an authority in his own motivation, on
the grounds that the ability to survey harms is auxiliary and noteworthy force
and not the essential power.58 in light of a legitimate concern for equity and
value necessity is that where involved with an agreement questions break,
mediation ought to be by an autonomous individual or body and not by the
other party to the agreement. This sort of position will be diverse in those
conditions where there is no debate or there is agreement between the
gatherings in regards to the break of conditions. In such a case, the official of
the state despite the fact that involved with the agreement will be inside his
privileges, in evaluating the harms occasioned by the break. Indeed, even the
State couldn't be an adjudicator in its own motivation or its own authority.
Hence, the aggregate impact of the choices is that when breaks not conceded,
one of the contracting parties can't accept to itself the ability to guarantee pay

72
 for the break from the other party without their being any arbitration by an
external office regarding whether there was any break of agreement.
D. Both the breach and the right to compensation must be founded

To invoke section 74, the injured party has to prove that there has been a breach
of contract on the part of the other party. And, therefore, this remedy system
provided in the contract should be exercised. In a very famous authority,61 the
action against the defendant was not allowed and it was held by the court that the
plaintiff could not take shelter of the clause, when there was no breach on the part
of the defendant. In this case, the clause was that he would be liable to
compensate the plaintiff, if his goods were rejected by the foreign buyer, but it
was found that the goods were rejected, not because of any inherent effect, but
because of the mis-functioning of the containers in which the goods were shipped
to. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the shipping agent, but did not pursue it.
Hence, the action against the defendant was not allowed. In another case also the
clause is to the liquidated damages, was not applied by the court because in this
case, the agreement specified damages for certain types of breach of contract,
whereas the breaches alleged were of different nature. Moreover, it was held by
the court in another judgement that the court has to make its own assessment of
the amount of loss caused by the breach and the court is not supposed to blindly
follow the contract clause in awarding damages without any adjudication,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board’s case 64 is another good
example, in which the contract clauses clearly provided a formula for pre-
estimation of damages in the event of breach. The first extension was granted to
the contract and the second extension was granted subject to the levy of
liquidated damages as provided in the contract. Arbitrator did not proceed
accordingly, and the award was set aside by the court.

NATURE AND EFFECT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

A scrutiny of this segment makes plainly despite the fact that the gatherings may, by an
understanding, settle a proper aggregate as harms for the break of agreement; the court isn't
unfit to allow alleviation to the party submitting default, in case it is held that the measure of
harms fixed by the gatherings is unreasonable or corrective. Whenever it is chosen by the

73
court, it is available to it, to allow such sensible pay as the court might consider fit in those
conditions. The extension and the impact of Sec.74 are delightfully thought of and seen by
the privy Council in BhaiPanna Singh‟s case. 65The perception made by Privy Council for
this situation was as per the following: "The impact of Sec. 74, of Indian agreement
demonstration of 1872, is that it qualified the offended parties for recuperate simpliciter the
amount of Rs. 10,000 whether as punishment or sold harms. The offended parties should
demonstrate that harms they have endured."

In reality, the evidence of real harm is viewed as crucial for look for harms. It is important
with respect to the honest party to demonstrate the genuine measure of harms endured so that,
to that degree the sum previously paid might be permitted to be held. Also, it was held by the
court for another situation that the concurred exchanged harms to be authorized should be the
aftereffect of a real preestimate of harms. Apparently the courts ought to regularly complete
the details of the agreement and those harms as consented to between the gatherings, where
the statement identifying with the honor of harms is result of break of the agreement, is a
fundamental piece of the agreement, and has been added as an assurance for the exhibition of
the agreement, and the total fixed pre-gauge of harms, consented to by the gatherings.
Furthermore, the inquiry regarding whether the sum fixed in the agreement is pre-gauge of
harms or is a punishment is for the not really settled by current realities and conditions of
each case.

To comprehend the impact of Sec.74 all the more solidly, it is obligatory here to specify
Badhava Singh‟s case, where the genuine impact of Sec. 74 was summed up somewhat as
follows:-

 Merely because a sum is mentioned in the agreement to be so payable on the breach

thereof, the plaintiff cannot be entitled to the entire sum so named „simpliciter’.
 The plaintiff would be entitled to only “reasonable compensation” which is also
subject to the amount named in the agreement, the maximum.
 The question of „reasonable compensation‟ would depend upon and must be
determined by the facts and the circumstances of each case.

74
  The effect of the Indian law as mentioned in Sec. 74 is to do away with the distinction
between „penalty‟ and „liquidated damages‟, which has sometimes given rise to a
little confusion under the English law.
 To invoke Sec. 74, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove the damage suffered by
him, but a liberty is given to the plaintiff in this regard i.e. such prove may be direct
of circumstantial, and need not possess the quality of arithmetical accuracy.
 The court may grant the entire sum named in the agreement as compensation if the
plaintiff becomes successful in establishing that the sum named in the agreement is a
genuine pre-estimate of the damages, or would otherwise be reasonable compensation
for the breach. Whereas on the other hand, if the court comes to the conclusion that
the amount as fixed in terrorem, or unconscionable and extravagant, it would be open
to the court to award as it deems fit and reasonable.
 The question whether the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of the compensation or
not, the factor, which the court would consider is „whether the sum named in the
agreement is not disproportionate to the injury caused and whether the burden evenly
and equitably was on both the parties to the contract‟.

Now, it is more clear that if the court is unable to assess the compensation, sum named by
the parties (if it be regarded as a genuine pre-estimate), may be taken into consideration
as the measure of reasonable compensation, but it cannot be taken into consideration, if a
sum named in the nature of a penalty. Moreover, this section will be applicable only when
a contract has been broken. However, it may be noted that there are two kinds of the
obligation on the part of the parties to the contract i.e. primary obligation, and secondary
obligation. If the primary obligation under a contract is secured by a secondary covenant
to pay a penalty or liquidated damages, the oblige obtains no option of breaking his
primary obligation.Sec. 74 categorically provides that if the obligee sues for recovery of
damage, he cannot recover compensation in excess of the amount of penalty, or liquidated
damages. The obligee may, however, enforce any other remedy open to him. Thus, he
may, if he can sue for specific performance or injunction, and he may enforce an
alternative relief such as a right of re-entry or forfeiture.

More precisely, it can be said that Sec. 74 provides for compensation for breach of
contract in two types of cases:-

1.) Where the contract names a sum to be paid in case of breach; and

75
 2.) . Where the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty.

Thus, the plaintiff does not get the benefit of this provision, if he fails to make out that there
was legal injury resulting due to the breach attributed to the defendant.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN “PENALTY” AND “LIQUIDATED DAMAGES” UNDER

SECTION 74

The contrast among punishments and sold harms relies on the aim of the gatherings to be
accumulated from the dialects of the agreement. In the event that the goal is to get the
exhibition of the agreement by the inconvenience of a fine or punishment, then, at that point
the predetermined aggregate is a punishment. The embodiment of punishment is an
installment of cash as in terrorem. Though then again, if the goal is to evaluate the harms for
break of the agreement, it is viewed as sold harms. The Courts won't be limited by the simple
utilization of "sold harms" or "punishment" and will look to what exactly should be thought
of, in reason, to host been expected by the gatherings according to the subject - matter.
Punishment or exchanged harms can't be taken as such on simply being so depicted. A
punishment is an amount of cash so specified in terrorem, and exchanged harms are a
certifiable pre-gauge of harms. They are to be so judged contingent on current realities of
each case. To decide the inquiry whether a specific specification in an agreement is in the
idea of punishment or exchanged harms, the court more likely than not considered different
important elements, for example,:-

 The personality of the exchange;

 The exceptional idea of the exchange, assuming any;
 The general circumstance of the gatherings;
 The rights and commitments gathering from such an exchange under the overall law;
 The aim of the gatherings fused in the agreement; and
 That specification which is tested in the court to be correctional in nature.

On the off chance that after a particularly extensive thought, the court tracks down that the
genuine reason for which the specification was remembered for the agreement was that by
reason of its abusive or unforgiving person, it might work in terrorem over the promisor to
urge him to satisfy the agreement, then, at that point the arrangement will be held to be one
via punishment. In this manner:

76
  A sum will be considered as punishment if the total named is extreme and
inappropriate;
 The sum specified will be considered as punishment if the break comprises in paying
of cash and the total specified is more noteworthy than the total which should have
been paid;
 The aggregate named will be considered as a punishment in those conditions where a
solitary singular amount is payable as pay on the occurrence of at least one occasions
some of which cause genuine harm and other unimportant, yet this is a simple
assumption (just that). In such cases, one thing is exceptionally certain that different
sums should be fixed for every conceivable occasion. While then again:
 where it is unrealistic to make an exact pre-gauge of harm an aggregate specified as
harms is considered as a genuine deal between the gatherings;
 Regardless of whether an exact pre-gauge of the harm is conceivable, the gatherings
might fix a total in the agreement to stay away from the trouble and costs in the
appraisal of harms.

Regardless of whether a specified total is punishment or exchanged harms is an issue of

development to be chosen the terms and intrinsic conditions, as they existed at the hour of the
agreement, and not at the hour of its breach.80 Whether a specified total ought to be
considered as „penalty‟ or „liquidated damages‟, is an issue of development and of law and
that is the reason, it ought not set in stone by the court,82 according to the strict language of
the agreement. Despite the fact that a total is unmistakably specified in the arrangement, still
it very well may be ignored in the event that it doesn't mean the genuine idea of the
transaction.83 The qualification between the two had been perfectly clarified by Lord
Dunedin as would be natural for him as follows:

 The court should see if the total specified in the agreement is a punishment or
exchanged harms in genuine sense or not, albeit the phrasing utilized by the
gatherings to an agreement may by all appearances should mean what they say, yet
the articulation utilized in the understanding isn't considered as convincing.

77
  The reality, which the court should consider while deciding if the total specified is a
„penalty‟ or „liquidated damages‟ is that the pith of both the ideas is very surprising.
If there should be an occurrence of punishment, it is an installment of cash specified
as in terrorem of the defaulting party, while the quintessence of sold harms is a pre-
gauge of harm.
 As the inquiry whether a total exchanged his the punishment or sold harms is
consistently question of development which is chosen by considering the terms and
inborn conditions of every specific agreement, so it should be decided based on the
hour of making of the agreement, not at the hour of break of agreement.
 To help this errand of development, different tests have been proposed, which,
whenever considered, may demonstrate supportive or even decisive. For example,
 In the event that the aggregate specified in the understanding is observed to be extra
careful and unjustifiable in sum in correlation with the best misfortune, which might
possibly be demonstrated to have followed from the break, then, at that point it will be
considered as a punishment.
 The total specified is a total more noteworthy than the total, which should have been
paid and besides on the off chance that the break comprises just in not paying an
amount of cash, it will be considered as a punishment.
 At the point when a solitary single amount is made payable via remuneration, on the
event of at least one or the entirety of a few occasions, and some of which might
event, genuine and others piddling harm, then, at that point it is attempted to be a
punishment. In any case, it is just an assumption.

Examination of the previously mentioned decides substantiates itself that these principles are
only assumptions in regards to the goal of the gatherings and these might be countered by
giving proof of the opposite goal. The installment will be held to be a punishment if the break
comprises just in not paying an amount of cash, and the total specified is a total more
prominent than the total which should have been paid, yet it may not be a punishment where
it is consented to charge a specific pace of revenue with a condition that if the installment is
made, a lesser rate will be acknowledged; nor where the entire total becomes payable in an
agreement for installment by portions, in case of any Installment falling financially past due.

78
Where the specification isn't a specification via sold harms, for what it's worth in the idea of a
punishment, it would not block a case for unliquidated harms. 86 on the off chance that, the
specification is in the idea of punishment, the abused party is as yet qualified for summon the
typical cure of unliquidated harms, yet on the off chance that the specification is one of
exchanged harms, the arrangement bars the case of unliquidated harms for that break. There
may, once more, be a regular aggregate which is neither harms nor punishment, however, as
it has been known as a „liquidated satisfaction‟87 the concurred cost of freedom to do or
discard something. In such a case there is only a restrictive or elective guarantee which, if not
open to some other protest, will produce results as per its terms.

From the above conversation, it very well may be presumed that sometimes, the gatherings
are limited by the genuine letters of their understanding which ought to be offered impact to,
while in different cases, it is construed that they, at the end of the day, don't consider being
limited by it, and that they don't mean what they have said. It is completely called attention to
by Pollock and Mulla as follows :-

"The closest guess to an overall test yet showed up at is that alleged sold harms won't be
recoverable in full when the court thinks about that this would be extreme or irrational having
respect to conditions of the specific case." However, in India, the differentiation among
"punishment" and "exchanged harms" has been luckily discarded by an intense stroke of the
Legislature, which diminished the courts in this nation of addressing the numerous mind
boggling questions which the qualification has led to. Segment 74 of the Indian Contract Act
makes arrangement for installment of pay in all cases in which the gatherings named a total in
the agreement add up to be paid in the event of a break thereof, independent of the inquiry
whether the aggregate named is treated as a punishment or exchanged harms.

distinctive components of Sec. 74

This segment has four interesting elements, which must be borne as a primary concern:
section 74 covers each specification contained in an agreement whether it be as installment of
a total named or remuneration in whatever other structure which is to come into activity upon
the break and it would be treated as a punishment;

79
The party whining of the break isn't qualified for full pay specified to be paid however the
person can recuperate just a sensible pay; Such sensible remuneration ought not surpass the
first assumptions for the gatherings regardless; and Despite the fact that the real misfortune or
harm has not been supported from the break still such sensible pay can be recuperated.

Considering the above conversation, decisively, one might say that where the court in the
wake of considering every one of the conditions of the case tracks down that the terms, which
were expected to come into procedure on a break of the agreement, are in the idea of a
punishment inside the significance of this segment or at the end of the day they are cruel,
crooked and absurd, it should decline to authorize them and continue to survey the harms at
an aggregate which is sensible under those conditions. The court will undoubtedly permit as
far as possible specified by the gatherings, it might permit considerably less than that which
is managed by the gatherings.

Application of Section 74 to Consent Decree

Basically, the principle which is applicable to consent decree is that if a creditor agrees to
reduce the amount of its claim on certain conditions, but the agreement provides that, on the
failure of the debtor fulfil any of those conditions, the original claim shall revive, it is clear
that the revival of the original claim is not in the nature of a penalty. But if, on the contrary, a
debtor agrees to pay a sum of money over and above his original liability, he is entitled to be
relieved against what undoubtedly has to be regarded as penalty. Only when a clause or
condition of the decree entitled a party to something, to which he would not have been at all
entitled to, in the suit, can be held to be penal in nature and not otherwise.

Thus, Section 74 cannot be invoked to such decree if that decree makes a provision by way of
concession rather than by way of penalty. For the application of section 74, the requirement is
that there must be a contract; it is immaterial whether the contract is outside the court, or
inside the court. A contract does not cease to be a contract merely by virtue of the fact that
decree has been obtained on that basis. Moreover, where a consent decree gives effect to an
agreement which embodies a right to forfeiture, the court while exercising its equitable
jurisdiction, is competent to grant such relief against forfeiture, as it might have granted if
there had been no consent decree and a suit had been instituted to enforce the compromise.
No distinction has been drawn between the regular court and the executing court as regards
the jurisdiction to examine the applicability of this section. While recording a compromise
and to pass decree on the basis, the scope of scrutiny is very limited and all that court can

80
examine is whether agreement is lawful or not. But if it is considered that once the
compromise is recorded, the court would be powerless in the matter, the policy of law would
be reversed and the object would be frustrated. Moreover, if it bare reading of Cl. (2) of
Sec.2, C.P.C., is taken then it will be clear that, decree‟ includes a compromise or a consent
decree under this section. It means certainly, such a decree embodies the agreement between
the parties with the courts, command added to it.

In spite of the fact, that the decree based on a compromise or agreement between the parties it
does not invite the exercise of adjudicatory powers and conclusively that reminds the rights
of the parties with regard to the matter in controversy. Such a consent decree, in terms of Sec.
2(2) of CPC nonetheless remains a decree as a result of the adjudication by the court, and the
principle incorporated in section 74 of the contract act, can never be applied to such a decree.
In a case, the court has made it very clear that the executive court had no jurisdiction to go
into the question whether the rate of interest awarded was excessive or unreasonable.

In another case, the court observed that when the parties submitted before the court and
agreed to a decree in terms of the compromise specifying the liquidated damages and if
decree was passed in terms of the agreement, the judgement debtor could not later on turn
around and contended that damages agreed to were panel in nature. Thus, the very idea of the
decree being penal is found to be foreign to the decree for the rights of the parties settled by
the said decree. Ultimately, it can be said that the compromise decree is considered to be a
creature of the agreement on which it is based and it is subject to all the incidents of such
agreement that it is a contract with the command of a judge super added to it, and while
construing its provisions the fundamental principles governing the construction of the
contracts, will be applicable. The cardinal principle the construction of the contract is that the
entire contract must be taken as constituting an organic synthesis embodying provisions
which balance in the sum of reciprocal rights and obligations.

SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 74

So far as the scope of Sec.74 is concerned, now categorically, it can be stated that this section
deals with the measure of damages in two classes of cases:-

 Where the contract names a sum to be paid in case of breach (liquidated damages);
and
 Where the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty (penalty).

81
The second category widens the amplitude of this section. This category would comprise
forfeiture of a right to money, or other property already delivered, such as a forfeiture of
earnest money, security deposit, etc.149 To invoke this section the proof of actual loss or
damage is not the essential condition for awarding reasonable compensation, whereas under
Sec.73 the actual loss or damage which naturally arose in the course of things has to be
proved. The section actually does not do away with the proof of actual loss or damage, if this
is proved; the court may take into account in awarding “reasonable compensation”.

Although this section also deals with compensation in respect of a breach of contract just like
the provision under section Sec.73, but the contracts dealt with this section are those
containing a penalty or a named sum to be paid in the event of a breach of contract. Whereas
the scope of Sec.73 extends to those contracts also where no named sum or penalty is stated.
There can be certain cases where it is possible that in the same contract, there is a provision
for liquidated damages for some type of breach, and these would therefore fall within the
ambit of Sec.74, while the other types of breach, which are not provided for would be
covered under Sec.73. Sec.74 can be invoked only when there is a contractual breach. There
the contract provides for liquidated damages and the arbitrator awards the full amount named
in the contract, the award cannot be said to be bad on the face of it, as being opposed to
Sec.73 and Sec.74 of the Indian Contract Act, because both the section has provided for
reasonable compensation andSec.74contemplates that the maximum reasonable compensation
may be the amount which may be named in This section says that the compensation that can
be awarded should not exceed the penalty stipulated for, which will be treated as the ceiling,
as it were. As for the quantification of the compensation, it is a matter entirely for the
discretion of the court subject to the built-in guidance of reasonableness in the award of
compensation. The Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“The measure of damages in the case of breach of a stipulation by way of penalty under
Sec.74 is reasonable compensation not exceeding the penalty stipulated for. In assessing
damages the court has, subject to the limit of the penalty stipulated, jurisdiction to award such
compensation as it deems reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

Jurisdiction of the court to award compensation in case of breach of contract is unqualified

except as to the maximum stipulated: but compensation has to be reasonable and which
imposes upon the court duty to award compensation according to settle principles. This
section undoubtedly says that the aggressive party is entitled to receive compensation from

82
the party who has broken the contract, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have
been caused by the breach. Thereby, it merely dispenses with proof of actual loss or damages;
it does not justify the award of compensation, when in consequence of the breach no legal
injury at all has resulted, because compensation for breach of contract can be awarded to
make good loss or damages, which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the
parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach”.

The distinction between „liquidated damages‟ and „penalty‟ has been abolished by the Indian
Legislature and therefore, it is not necessary in India for the courts to decide whether the
amount fixed in the contract has been fixed as a penalty or, as liquidated damages, because
the result in either case, is that the courts must determine reasonable compensation. The
provision of Sec.74 of the Indian contract act would not be applicable to the surety bonds
executed in favour of the courts. As mentioned above also, there is nothing in section 74 to
limit its application to any particular form of contract and a consent decree does not become
less a contract between the parties because it is impressed with the seal of the court.

ANALYSIS OF EXCEPTION ATTACHED TO SECTION 74

Exemption: - When any individual goes into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instrument
of a similar sort, or under the arrangements of any law, or compelled of the (Central
Government)157 or of any (State)158 Government, gives any bond for the presentation of
any open obligation or act wherein people in general are intrigued, he will be at, endless
supply of the state of any such instrument, to pay the entire aggregate referenced in that.
Albeit this exemption gives that the individual going into the bond will be at endless supply
of the cling to pay the entire aggregate referenced in that, that in conventional lawful
language doesn't imply that the court, will undoubtedly acknowledge the entire of the
responsibility to the degree of the sum referenced in the bond, and pass a declaration for the
entire sum.

All things considered, it implies that the amount of punishment is the all out of the measure
of obligation past which is risk can't be extended. It never implies that all the circumspection
is removed from the hands of the courts, so it can't diminish the measure of the punishment,
as per the conditions of the case. To comprehend the importance of this exemption all the
more unmistakably Taluk Board‟s case is exceptionally useful. For this situation, a security
given by market project worker under the arrangements of the Madras Local Boards Act has
been held not to be a security "given under the arrangements of any law" inside the

83
significance of this exemption. Another model which is most appropriate here is the situation
of Srinivasa v. Rathanasabapathy, where it was held that an agreement with the district for
the illuminating a town, whereby it is specified that the store made by the lender ought to be
relinquished on any default made by him completing the conditions of the agreement doesn't
fall inside the four corners of this exemption.

CHAPTER-5

DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT AND DOCTRINE OF

UNJUST ENRICHMENT: AN OVERVIEW

As they travel to their destination jointly, sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, cannot be discussed separately. As a result, following a full examination of Section 73
in the previous chapter, it will be necessary to explore Section 74 in detail in order to clarify
the idea of "fairness and reasonableness in the computation of damages," as this section
establishes a somewhat different criterion. The rule is that if a sum is specified in a contract
as the amount to be paid in the event of a breach, whether or not it is a penalty, the party that
suffers the breach is entitled to reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount specified.
As a result, the indicated sum is the utmost limit of obligation. Compared to the English
system, this has a few advantages.

The clause eliminates the need to establish procedures to distinguish liquidated damages from
penalties. Furthermore, according to English law, the court must either accept or reject the
entire amount. The court in India does not have to reject the amount. It has the option of

84
accepting the amount or reducing it to a level that appears reasonable. Damages that represent
a liquidated demand payment in money are referred to as "liquidated damages." If the parties
to a contract have previously agreed on a sum of money to be paid to either party in the event
of a breach of the contract, whether or not actual damages have been proven, it is known as
liquidated or stipulated damages, which the party complaining of the breach is entitled to
recover. Liquidated damages are those that have been agreed upon and fixed by the parties. It
is the amount agreed upon by the parties in writing to be payable in the event of one of them
defaulting, and Section 74 applies to these damages.

The right to claim liquidated damages is enforceable under Section 74 of the Contract Act,
and if such a right is established, there is no need to calculate damages. When the parties
purposefully specify the amount of liquidated damages, there can be no inference that they
also intended to allow the party who has been harmed by the breach to ignore the sum
specified and instead claim a sum of money that was not ascertained or ascertainable at the
time of the breach. This sum may apply to all violations in some situations, but only to
specific breaches in others. In some circumstances, it will apply to either party's breach, but
in others, it will only apply to one party's breach. And, depending on whether one or both
parties are at fault, different payments may be prescribed for different breaches. The parties
to a contract rarely make provisions in the contract for the payment of damages in the event
of a breach. However, if such clauses are included in the contract at the time of its formation,
they have no bearing on the application of the rule that damages for breach are designed to
compensate for the plaintiff's actual loss. Essentially, it is an issue of contract drafting, as to
whether a sum set down in the contract should be regarded liquidated damages or a penalty.

1. If it is understood as a penalty, it cannot be recovered for a real endeavour to

liquidate, that is, to decrease the uncertainty of potential damages of an unknown
amount to a certainty where the sum may be collected. The genesis of the rule against
penalties was in equity, which would relieve against penalties by reducing them to the
actual damage suffered, but it was taken up and applied by the common law, which
was then reinforced by statute.
2. The court will recognise the sum determined by the parties as liquidated damages if it
is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that appears likely to be caused if the breach
provided for occurs. It is a question of construction that must be decided based on the
terms and circumstances of each individual contract, which must be determined at the
time of contracting, not at the time of the violation.

85
 3. Furthermore, if the number is not an estimate of the likely damage that the parties
agreed to, the court will accept it because they agreed to limit the damages recovered
to an amount less than that which a breach would likely cause.
4. If the amount is fixed in terrorem, on the other hand, the court will view the provision
as a penalty and will not enforce it. The courts are not bound by the terminology used
in the construction of the terms "penalty" and "liquidated damages" when they are
included in a contract, but they will consider the substance rather than the form. The
parties are free to refer to the amount stated as "liquidated damages," but it will be
considered as such if the court believes it to be a penalty. In contrast, if the parties
have designated this sum as a "penalty," but the court determines that it is a real pre-
estimate of the loss, it will only be recognised as "liquidated damages." Whether the
agreed sum is recovered from the infringing party is determined by whether it is
liquidated damages or a penalty. When damages can be recovered as liquidated
damages or as a penalty is a question of fact that the courts must decide based on the
facts and circumstances of each case. Because the law relating to liquidated damages
and penalties has a long history, a brief overview of its evolution over the centuries is
necessary for a better understanding of current law.

THE FORMATION OF MODERN LAW

The law was reaffirmed for now in various solid House of Lords and Judicial Committee
choices at the turn of the nineteenth century.

The motivation behind placing such provisions in arrangements is to advance sureness, and in
business contracts, where gatherings can ensure themselves, the court is probably going to
take the view that what the gatherings have concurred ought to regularly be maintained, and
to try not to set a standard that would overcome that reason.

The law was built up for now in numerous definitive House of Lords and legal council
decisions when the new century rolled over. Master Dunedin reexamined the standards for
deciding if a specified total is sold harms or punishment in a progression of "rules" in
Pneumatic Tyr Furthermore, a short survey of the Ford Motor Company case is required. 29
In the present circumstance, a vehicle maker gives a seller with an amount of vehicles and
extra parts relying on the prerequisite that they are not sold beneath list estimating. As

86
"concurred harms," an amount of $ 50 was expected for each break. The seller was the person
who violated the law. The sum not really settled to be a discipline.

This kind of case and rule supports current law.

All the more critically, Kemble's case is relevant here since the litigant resolved to play for
four seasons at the Covent Garden theater for $ 3 6s 8d each night. The agreement specified
that if any party wouldn't complete the arrangement or any piece of it, the other party would
be needed to pay $ 1000 in "exchanged harms." During the subsequent season, the litigant
wouldn't perform. The specification was observed to be corrective. The accompanying
assertion by Colman J has been viewed as a reasonable present day depiction of what basic
the Dunlop approach. "Regardless of whether an arrangement is to be treated as a punishment
involves development to be settled by finding out if the dominating legally binding capacity
of the arrangement at the hour of going into contract was to deflect a party from breaking the
agreement or to remunerate the blameless party for break," it said. By looking at the
aggregate that would be payable on break with the misfortune that may be capable if break
occurred, the authoritative job is impediment as opposed to redressing. Afterward, when the
new century rolled over, a legal council in the Philips case supported their methodology,
while accentuating its significance being reasonable. The House of Lords decided that the
sum settled upon by the gatherings was a real gauge of the likely harm and not a discipline. In
this situation, it was considered sensible to utilize a computation dependent on assessments of
the deficiency of return on capital at an every day rate, the impact of the postponement on
related agreements, and greater expenses. The huge segment of Lord Dunedin's comments
merits tending to here.

He laid out a couple of key rules in such manner, which incorporate the accompanying: -

 It will be viewed as a discipline if the sum expressed for it is unreasonable and

inappropriate as opposed to the most genuine misfortune that might be demonstrated
to have come about because of the break.

87
  In the event that the break comprises exclusively of neglecting to pay an amount of
cash, and the total demonstrated is bigger than the amount that ought to have been
paid, it will be viewed as a punishment.
 At the point when a solitary bump installment is payable as pay for the event of at
least one of different events, some of which might result in huge and others minor
charges, it is viewed as that the cash is in the idea of discipline.
 There is no motivation behind why the necessary figure can't be a genuine pre-gauge
of damage, given that the results of infringement are with the end goal that ideal pre-
assessment is almost outlandish.
 Albeit these standards are simply assumptions concerning the gatherings' aims, and
they can be invalidated by proof of an opposite aim emerging from a survey of the
agreement as a whole37, they actually have their own importance as far as the
differentiation between sold harms and punishment.

DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT

An individual isn't banned from documenting unmistakable cases for break of agreement and
unreasonable advancement. For an express agreement, an agreement inferred in-law, and an
agreement suggested truth be told, a party might contend elective grounds of activity. A few
vital contemplations should be made when choosing whether or not to dispatch a semi
agreement or quantum meruit activity instead of a case for break of an express agreement.
For instance, an offended party could decide to begin by arguing a suggested contract
guarantee as a reinforcement contention to a case for break of an express agreement.

Openness to bigger disclosure and the chance of important movement practice from the
respondent might actuate the offended party to incline toward one speculation over the other,
essentially right away. In fact, on account of a break of agreement guarantee, an offended
party might pick to investigate the propriety of such a case during the disclosure cycle and,
whenever required, look for leave to alter. The vital for the examination is assessing the
presence and capacity to demonstrate that the gatherings had an express agreement on the
applicable topic, which the litigant penetrated and caused the offended party hurt. If not, or
on the other hand if demonstrating it is troublesome, an offended party might have to seek
after a suggested contract approach.

88
In agreement cases, the gatherings are much of the time confounded by the speculations of
recuperation known as "quantum meruit" and "crooked enhancement."

At the point when an offended party is uncertain whether a case for break of agreement or
compensation of the advantage gained by the other party is feasible, these hypotheses are
generally argued as substitute tallies. Nonetheless, quantum meruit and out of line
enhancement are some of the time mistakenly argued in a similar protest, and the cure picked
is some of the time inaccurate inferable from current realities of the case. Thus, it is basic to
investigate the contrasts between the two thoughts. Inability to recognize the two might bring
about a broken assessment of the cases, with conceivably dangerous repercussions for the
case.

One reason for the disarray between the two is that quantum meruit emerged in law as an
approach to accomplish a similar impartial solution for forestalling "unfair improvement" that
could happen if a party provided administrations without an agreement. Thus, while tending
to quantum meruit, the courts might allude to the motivation behind keeping a party from
being "shamefully well off" without aiming to apply the impartial cure of "unreasonable
enhancement." actually, "unfair advancement" is recognized as one of the parts of quantum
meruit hypothesis.

In this manner, while deciding if a case ought to be argued as quantum meruit or uncalled for
advancement, one thing to remember is that while the essential objective of both is something
very similar, the components of the two activities contrast. In the present exceptionally
unique and serious climate, contracting parties often end up in a position where they should
document claims for harms or pay of misfortunes. The Latin expression "quantum meruit" is
quite possibly the most generally utilized legitimate terms today. It has something to do with
contract law. Lamentably, it is muddled what it implies. The definition changes marginally
relying upon the court framework. This is somewhat because of the different court decisions
that have deciphered the expression. It in a real sense signifies "however much he is
expected." When work was performed according to an agreement yet no understanding could
be reached on the aggregate, the court would basically judge what was reasonable.

Quantum meruit is the court's method of deciding harms emerging from an agreement in
some legal frameworks where the agreement is muddled. The cases depend on the way that,
for some explanation, misfortune can't be completely recuperated under the current
agreement. Since quantum meruit claims are stand-out, guarantee techniques have been

89
created in light of their event. The utilization of quantum meruit isn't confined to dropped
contracts when it is evident that the agreement can't be utilized for misfortune recuperation.

The act of documenting a quantum meruit guarantee has additionally spread to different
cases, like when the offended party accepts they have not been satisfactorily made up for
their misfortune, inciting them to record a case against the respondent. There were two free
and unmistakable general sets of laws in England during the development of the law. There
were courts of precedent-based law. They managed contract, land, property, bequest
devolution, and different issues that arose under the precedent-based law framework. After
some time, it became clear that a few decisions dependent on an inflexible understanding of
the law were simply excessively unforgiving. Thus, a great deal of evenhanded issues were
settled through a different legal framework. These were Equity Courts, with power over
evenhanded cures. They worked under the pretense of "decency." In certain conditions,
parties were constrained to apply to one of the precedent-based law courts first, and afterward
to a court of value for the fitting cure if a further goal was required. Afterward, the Common
Law and Equity Courts amalgamated into one court framework, and an equal fair idea of law
known as the law of compensation emerged close by the improvement of the Law of
Contract.

THEORY AND DEFINITIONS OF QUANTUM MERUIT

Before delving into its significance, it's important to understand quantum meruit theory. This
thesis is founded on the idea that one party should be allowed to recoup the value of their
services when another party has been profited unfairly and unjustly. The term "quantum
meruit" refers to a request to the court for damages based on the value of the labour
completed.

QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY

As previously stated, quantum meruit refers to situations in which one party benefits while
the other receives nothing. This term means "what one has earned" in Latin. This is the profit
or enrichment that one party receives as a result of the activities of the other party in contract
law. According to the law, the notion states that another party has acquired an unfair benefit
and must compensate the party that provided it. As a result, quantum meruit is a legal

90
philosophy that demands justice and rationality. The idea promotes party equity by ensuring
that if a person provides a service or a good, that person receives the contract's benefit. It's a
crucial legal principle because it allows a court to give a fair outcome in an unfair
circumstance.

INDIA'S QUANTUM MERUIT DOCTRINE

The Common Law rule has been deserted in India, and Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 accommodates the recuperation of pay in specific conditions where an individual
legitimately works on something for another without expecting to do as such unwarrantedly,
and that other individual advantages from it. To fall under the part's reason, two things should
be set up: first, that the individual directing the work didn't do it needlessly, that is, without
anticipating anything consequently, and second, that the other individual has profited from
the work done. Tolerating the advantage of another person's work doesn't suggest an inferred
consent to pay for it. The work more likely than not been done legally with the purpose of
asserting compensation, and under Indian law, there is likewise position to hold that it is
important to give the individual who is looked to be expected to take responsibility, a chance
to deny, on the rule that no man will undoubtedly pay for something he has not had the
alternative of declining, however it ought to be noticed that the choices are not crooked.

IN ENGLAND AND INDIA, THE QUANTUM MERUIT DOCTRINE HAS BEEN

APPLIED

When an express contract is mutually amended by the parties' implied agreement, or when
the contract is not completed, quantum meruit is the measure of damages. While the concepts
of quantum meruit and "unjust enrichment" of one person at the expense of another are
sometimes confused, they are not the same.

The idea of quantum meruit can be used in the following situations (but is not limited to):

1. When a person engages someone to do work for him and the contract is either not
completed or is otherwise deemed unperformed, the person doing the work may sue
the defendant for the value of the improvements made or services rendered. The

91
 legislation suggests that the employer has promised the worker that he will be paid as
much as he deserves for his services. When computing a quantum meruit judgement,
the court may utilise the measure of value expressly indicated in the contract as proof
of the worth of the improvements or services, but the court is not obligated to apply
the provisions of the contract. The reason for this is that the contract's values are
rebuttable, which means that the person who will eventually be responsible for paying
the award can question the contract's value of services.

2. When there is an express contract for a certain manner of reimbursement for services
and a specific sum, the plaintiff cannot breach the contract and pursue a quantum
meruit action on an implicit contract. However, if there is a complete lack of
consideration, the plaintiff has the option to reject the contract and seek restitution
under the quantum meruit concept. It was held in an English judgment13 and later
applied in Victoria in the case of Sopoy v. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd. 14 Restitution
is now the theoretical foundation of quasi-contract law. Quantum meruit, quantum
valebat, moneys had and received, recovery of moneys paid in error or upon a total
failure of consideration, and note restitution on a quantum meruit for terminating
party where contract discharged for breach or repudiation as an alternative to sue for
damages for breach of contract were all examples of quasi contract or "money
claims." To make a quantum meruit claim for lost earnings, a plaintiff must first prove
his claim and then persuade the court that the defendant has benefited from the benefit
and that the advantage has resulted in unjust enrichment. While the premise of
quantum meruit claims may look uncomplicated for a repudiated contract, benefit
appraisal is highly subjective, making a consistent foundation of application difficult
to apply. Benefit was examined and held for the plaintiff in several cases, but the
cases were distinguished or overruled in subsequent cases. While plaintiffs first
sought tangible benefits, intangible benefits have subsequently been sought, and
damages have been awarded. As a result, both plaintiffs and defendants have
extensive documented case evidence to argue quantum meruit claims, particularly the
claim for benefit and unjust enrichment. Unfortunately, the application in a number of
preceding examples is challenging due to minor variances between cases that may
obtain distinctive treatment. The subjective nature of this type of application of the
doctrine, as well as the judges' individual assessments, generates confusion in this
area. Even different judges sitting over various trials could make judgements based on

92
 different specific cases. The research in this chapter will look at determining a
defendant's profit and unjust enrichment, focusing on a subset of often cited English
and Indian cases, as well as how these cases have been treated in the courts since then.
In England, the doctrine of quantum meruit is generally applied to a certain sort of
case, namely construction matters. The following is a list of some of the cases
discussed in this article. But one thing is certain: this list is far from complete; many
more situations might be added. A discussion of these instances is important since
they are relevant case laws for a better understanding of this subject.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT DOCTRINE

Following the consideration of the above-mentioned doctrine, we must now discuss the
doctrine of unjust enrichment. Because the name of this notion is muddled. It is not a contract
at all, despite the fact that it is referred to as a "quasi-contract" and is based on a "contract
implied in law." It's a legal fiction defined as "a legal obligation imposed by law to perform
justice even though no commitment was ever made or intended." In contrast to quantum
meruit, recovery for unjust enrichment does not begin with the parties' "assent." While
quantum meruit is based on the parties' expectation, unjust enrichment is based on society's
interest in preventing the injustice of a person retaining a benefit for which the provider has
not been paid.

The court held in a significant case that the following elements must be proven to recover
under the doctrine of unjust enrichment: a lack of an adequate remedy at law; a benefit
conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff coupled with the defendant's appreciation of the
benefit, i.e., a "enrichment"; and Acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances
that render it inequitable. Each of these aspects has the potential to cause serious issues for
innocent people.

WHAT DOES THE DOCTRINE OF “UNJUST ENRICHMENT” MEAN?

The definition of "unjust"

93
Unjust is defined as something that does not follow the established norms of fairness or
justice and is also unfair. What does the word "enrichment" mean? It is believed that a person
gets enriched when they gain something from another. This enrichment can be both beneficial
and harmful. The definition of "unjust enrichment" Unjust enrichment occurs when a person
unfairly uses another's property at the detriment of another. The doctrine of "unjust
enrichment" can be summarised as follows: "A person who has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of another is compelled to compensate the other." The meaning of this sentence is
that whenever a person obtains a benefit from another person, causing the other person to
suffer loss, the person who obtained the benefit is compelled to reimburse the plaintiff in an
amount equal to the benefit received by the defendant.” This example can help you
understand it better: - “X owns a home and approaches Y, a builder, to build a garage for
him. The contract between the two parties is exclusively for the garage construction. Y
creates a driveway outside X's house after completing the garage. Then X is responsible for
the costs expended by Y in constructing the driveway. As a result, X is unjustly enriched in
this case. As a result, he is responsible for the costs.” According to the notion of unjust
enrichment, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must
reimburse the other to the extent of the enrichment. As a result, it is necessary to grasp the
idea of unjust enrichment in the context of India, as well as how Indian courts respond to the
claimant's enrichment allegation.

DEFINITIONS OF THE “UNJUST ENRICHMENT” DOCTRINE

The doctrine of "Unjust Enrichment" has been explained in various books in various ways,
but in a nutshell, it means that when a person receives benefits from 300 other people and
does not give anything in return, i.e. when a person unjustly enriches himself at the expense
of another, this is the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

According to the Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary, "unjust enrichment" occurs when one
person gains an advantage at the expense of another. The legislation suggests a pledge to
restore money gained by mistake, fraud, or for a completely unsuccessful consideration in
specific circumstances.” 34 “Unjust enrichment35 is the: The retention of an advantage
bestowed by another, without offering compensation, under circumstances where
reimbursement is reasonably expected,” according to Black Law Dictionary.

94
A benefit received from another that was not meant as a gift and was not legally justified, and
for which the beneficiary must provide restitution or compensation.

This is the area of law that deals with unreasonable advantages.

According to Oxford Law Student Dictionary:- “A cause of action developed at the common
law and equity, whereby, roughly, a person who is unjustly enriched, either by receipt of
value from the plaintiff in circumstances where he or she ought to return it, or by profiting
from a wrong done to the plaintiff, is required to pay over the value of that enrichment to the
plaintiff.”

According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law:- “The retaining of a benefit (as money)
conferred by another when principles of equity and justice calls for restitution to the other
party; also: the retaining of property acquired especially by fraud from another in
circumstances that demand the judicial imposition of a constructive trust on behalf of those
who in equity ought to receive it. It is a notion that mandates an equitable remedy for
someone who has been harmed by another's unjust enrichment.”

The rule against unjust enrichment is stated in section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
and is based on a third type of law, namely quasi-contracts or restitution, rather than any
contract or tort.

BASIS OF DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT

The doctrine of unjust enrichment was founded in English law on the principle of assumpsit,
or "had and received," and it was declared by Lord Mansfield in a famous case 38 that the
gist of this kind of action is that the defendant is obligated by the ties of natural justice and
equity to refund the money, depending on the circumstances of the case. He stated in Sadler
v. Evans39 that the money had and received action was "a generous action, founded on large
principles of equity, if the defendant cannot conscientiously hold the money." Any equity that
will counter the action is the defence. By the eighteenth century, the courts of equity had
expanded their jurisdiction to include cases where it was unjust for a recipient of property to
keep it.

INDIA'S POSITION

Unjust enrichment is a sort of equitable redress that is comparable to but not the same as
quantum meruit. The distinction between the two would be disputed by some law experts.

95
However, the primary distinction between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment is that in
unjust enrichment, there may never have been any agreement in the first place, whereas in
quantum meruit, there was an agreement but it never defined a price. “It is now widely
acknowledged that the concept of unfair enrichment is widespread, and that the principle of
restitution for unjust enrichment has spread across the legal system. This acceptance,
however, is a very recent trend. The principle's application came up completely independent
of one another, particularly in the area of law and equity.” 40 As a result, it has only been in
recent years that legal specialists have taken on the task of covering more than certain aspects
of restitution law.

The first tentative steps away from the implied contract theory were taken in India in the
1860s in the case of Rambux Chittangeo v. Modhoosoodun Paul Chawdhry41, where it was
held, with reference to Pothier and Austin jurisprudence, that a claim for contribution from a
co surety was not a contractual claim, and that the use of implied contract language was
something forced on the common liar.

The Indian Contract Act of 1872 followed this line: claims for necessaries supplied to those
without contractual capacity, claims for indemnity or contribution, claims to be paid for
beneficial services provided without the intention of making any gift, claims against the
finder of goods, and claims for restitution are all covered under the heading "Of certain
relations resembling those created by contract." It evolved over time as a result of judicial
interactions, becoming increasingly reliant on the notion of reparation. The principle was
formed in India under sections 69 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Within a decade
of the act's passage, it was held that co-surety claims for contribution were, after all, a
contractual term, and that the earlier cases discussing its contractual nature were delivered
before the act, when legislation had not stepped in to give different strength and affect to
certain relations between the parties out of the plain language.

A legal fiction had developed for the purpose of implying a contract, and while they can be
read with interest and benefit for practical purposes, they are absolute and irrelevant to the
matter under examination. The main wordless promises move the judicial mind
automatically, and no one should be allowed to gain himself unjustly at the expense of
another in this category of the law. By restitution, the law formed by judicial conscience
appears to discover requirements to combat unjust enrichment or unexpected gain. The

96
natural propensity of courts is to order restitution whenever and whenever they detect unfair
enrichment.

INDIA'S UNJUST ENRICHMENT DOCTRINE AND JUDICIAL TRENDS

Judicial Response and Legal Provisions under the Indian Contract Act of 1872:-

“If a person incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is legally obligated to
support is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his conditions in life, the
person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such
incapable person,” says Section 68. For instance43, B, a maniac, receives supplies from A
that are vital for his survival. A is entitled to a reimbursement from B's assets. In Banaras
Bank Limited v. Dip Chand, the court found that a creditor can recover money advanced to a
minor for necessities provided to him/her, and that the money can be recovered from the
minor's inheritance.

Section 69: “A person who is interested in the payment of money that another is legally
obligated to pay, and who thereby pays it, is entitled to reimbursement from the other.” The
party had agreed to purchase some mills in Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v. State of
Gondal; he was allowed to collect from the seller the sum of already overdue municipal taxes
paid by him in order to prevent the property from being sold at auction. Furthermore, the
court clarified that section 69 does not require a person who is interested in a payment to also
have a legal proprietary interest in the property for which the payment is made. “It is not in
every case in which a man has profited from the money of another that a need to repay that
money arises,” the judicial committee remarked in Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Lal, while
dealing with the rights of the parties making payments. The issue is not to be decided by
elegant considerations of what is right or wrong in the eyes of the highest morality. There
must be a stated or implicit responsibility to repay to sustain such an action. It is well
established that in the case of a voluntary payment by A of B's debt, there is no such
obligation.”

The court stated in Dakshina Mohun Roy v. Saroda Mohun Roy Chaudhary that money paid
by a person while in possession of an estate under a court judgement to prevent the sale of the
estate to recover government revenue arrears may be recovered by him under this clause. In a
recent case49, the Delhi High Court concluded that, to the degree it is relevant, Section 69 of

97
the Contract Act states that a person who is interested in the payment of money that another
is legally obligated to pay, and who thereby pays it, is entitled to reimbursement from the
other.

As a result, if the person due for payment of tax does not pay the amount within 30 days of
receiving notice of demand, the amount may be recovered through the sale of the defaulter's
immovable property. The court further stated that Section 69 of the Contract Act is founded
on the notion of unjust enrichment, which requires a person who has been unjustly enriched
at the expense of another to provide restitution. In fact, Section 69 of the Contract Act makes
no requirement that a person who is interested in payment also has a valid proprietary interest
in the property for which the demand is made.

Section 69 of the Contract Act defines an interest as one taken to avoid or defend a loss or
interest that would otherwise be lost to the person making the payment. This contractual
obligation would also be covered by Section 69 of the Contract Act's phrase "obligated by
law to pay." Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and Others vs. State of Gondal brought a
similar case to the Privy Council.

Section 70:- “

When a person lawfully does something for another person or provides something to him
without intending to do so gratuitously, and that other person benefits from it, the latter is
obligated to compensate or restore the thing done or delivered to the former.” For instance,
suppose A, a tradesman, leaves products at B's residence by accident. B respects the
commodities as if they were his own, and he makes use of them. Then B is obligated to pay A
the amount due for the items.

In Kirorilal v. State of M.P., the court decided that the plaintiff's claim under section 70 could
not be sustained because he did nothing to help the defendants. When the plaintiff does
nothing positive but simply refrains from doing something, he is not entitled to file a claim
under section 70.

The court held in Fakir Chand Seth v. Dambarudhar Bania that if a person gives an advance
in respect of an agreement that is later discovered to be void, he can recover the amount not
only under section, which specifically deals with such a situation, but also under section 70,
because the advance payment was not intended to be gratuitous.

98
The Supreme Court concluded in State of Rajasthan v. Raghunath Singh54 that, despite the
agreement's invalidity, the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the amount under Section 70 of
the Contract Act, based on the circumstances acknowledged and shown. Section 70 of the
Contract Act will apply in this case, and the compensation can be recovered by the person
who fulfilled his share of the agreement that was accepted by the government. In this case,
the Supreme Court upheld the claim under Section 70, finding that it is reasonable to order
the State to repay the money to the plaintiff, plus pendente lite and future interest.

In Niranjan Das v. Orrisa State Electricity Board55, electricity was provided for nearly three
years after the agreement's expiration date with no intention of doing so. The court
determined that the customer was accountable for charges for the delivery of power for the
specified period, but that the consumer could not be held liable for a minimum amount after
the electricity supply was disconnected. In a recent case:56, the Bombay High Court held that
under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which states:

“Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act- Where a person lawfully does
anything for another person, or delivers anything to another person, the plaintiff is entitled to
receive and the defendant is bound to pay reasonable expenses on account of that much
construction that is done,” the plaintiff would be entitled to receive and the defendant would
be bound to pay reasonable expenses on account of that much construction As a result, the
plaintiff's claim for damages as a result of the defendants' delay will be dismissed. Even the
plaintiff's claim of carrying materials for future construction cannot be considered because
there is no evidence to support it. Apart from the Rs. 6.08 lacs already received, the plaintiff
would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 4 lacs for work reasonably performed and
expenses reasonably incurred by the plaintiff.

Section 71: “A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody
is subject to the same responsibilities as a bailee.”

It was held in Union of India v. Amar Singh58 that the railway administration in Pakistan
could not deny liability under sec.71 when the waggon containing commodities was
abandoned within the borders of India and the forwarding railway administration took them
into custody. Plaintiff's timber was lying on a portion of land that was afterwards leased out
to the defendant in Union of India v. Mahommad Khan59. The latter gave owners of timber
notice to remove it, but it was not done. The defendant then cleaned the area and damaged or

99
removed the timber. Because the defendant had not taken the goods into custody, the
plaintiff's claim under section 71 was dismissed.

“A person to whom money has been paid, or something has been delivered, by mistake or
under duress, must reimburse or return it,” says Section 72.

sixty-first. For example, if A and B owe 100 rupees to C jointly, A pays the sum to C alone,
and B, unaware of this information, pays 100 rupees to C twice. Then C is obligated to refund
B the money.

Rice millers were required to restore the benefit they had gained in Food Corporation of India
v. K. Venkateswara62, where they were paid an amount in excess of the agreed rate due to a
mistake in the classification according to quality. The court concluded in Dhrangadhra
Municipality v. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd.63 that a plaintiff seeking a refund of an
illegal tax under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, must plead and prove that he
will suffer legal harm or prejudice if the restitution is not given. A plaintiff who has paid an
alleged illegal tax but has not borne the burden of the tax and has passed it on to the
consumers who have endured the burden of the tax cannot reasonably argue that his request
for restitution will harm him. The true plaintiffs in such a case should be individuals who
have actually been affected by the tax. If such pleadings are not filed, section 72 will be
violated, and a plaint that does not disclose the cause of action is likely to be dismissed under
O.7, R.11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reached a similar decision.

64 The Supreme Court has thoroughly examined the law relating to tax refund claims in this
case, and has overruled all previous cases to the degree that they are inconsistent with the
ruling. The court ordered the railway officials to reimburse the excess money in the case of
Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Union of India65, where the railway authorities
imposed extra fare under the incorrect belief that the products would have to be transported
along a longer route. The peculiarity of the issues involved in stating a claim for relief under
unjust enrichment indicates how distinct it is from the remedy of quantum meruit. The two
treatments cannot be used interchangeably. Because one has an equity sound and the other
has a legal sound, they cannot both be pled for the same claim at the same time. Before
determining the remedy that pertains to their situation, the parties must carefully study each
case.

100
DOCTRINE OF QUASI CONTRACT INTRODUCTION AND MEANING OF
DOCTRINE OF QUASI CONTRACT

As a word, quasi-contracts are linked to the doctrines of quantum meruit and unjust
enrichment. As a result, it is necessary to discuss the doctrine of quasicontract here. It is
logical to discuss this issue because when equity and good conscience are discussed, the
doctrine of quasi-contract is brought into play. A quasi-contract, also known as an implied-in-
law contract, is a made-up contract created by courts for equitable rather than contractual
reasons. A quasi-contract is a legal replacement for a contract that is made to impose equity
between the two parties. The term "quasi-contract" refers to a contract that should have been
formed but was not. It is utilised when a court determines that imposing an obligation on a
non-contracting party is necessary to avoid injustice and guarantee fairness. It's used in
particular situations that have to do with the concept of reparation.

Plaintiffs in several judicial systems may be entitled to reparation under quasi-contracts in

certain circumstances. They are employed as remedies for unjust enrichment, managing
another's affairs, and paying a debt that isn't owed to you.

Quasi-contracts are defined as "a man's legitimate and totally voluntary conduct that result in
any responsibility to a third person, and occasionally a reciprocal obligation between the
parties." A quasi-contract is defined as "a licit and voluntary act from which obligations are
formed subject to a regime similar to the contractual one imposed on the creator of the
conduct and a third party not bound by a contract" by one authority. Lawyers frequently
employ the prefix "quasi" to minimise, if not justify, a classification that, while handy in
practise or honoured by custom, is not justified by logic.

It appears to be a short step from contracts "implied in reality," i.e., inferred from the
circumstances, to contracts implied by law or quasi-contract. The contractual remedy is
awarded in this case where no agreement can be inferred but the law considers it necessary to
give the parties a right of action. In such instances, the lack of consent is irrelevant, and in
other cases, the concept of contract is nothing more than a ridiculous fiction born of the usage
of the term "Indebitatus Assumpsit's." Although quasi contracts are not contracts in the
traditional sense because there is no agreement between the parties, no one can be left

101
without recourse in the event of a legal injury or loss. This is why the Indian Contract Act of
1872 established this type of contract.

THE REASON FOR QUASI-CONTRACT

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what a quasi-contract is. Mr. Jackson noted that
“there is no commonly agreed perspective of what defines quasi-contract” because there is no
exact legal definition of the term. 70 However, conflict arose as soon as the desire to
investigate the concept's legal foundations was felt. Lord Mansfield made the first and most
ambitious attempt to establish such a foundation in Moses v. Macferlan.

Thus, Lord Mansfield, widely regarded as the true originator of such obligations, defined
them based on the concept that both law and justice should strive to prevent "Unjust
Enrichment," or the enrichment of one person at the expense of another. In Moses v.
Macferlan, His Lordship provided this explanation. Prof. Winfield defines it as
"responsibility, not exclusively preferential to any other head of law, placed on a specific
person to pay money to another particular person on the basis of unjust gain."

“The limitations of quasi-contract are not so much untraced as untraceable,” Prof. Winfield
continued, “different titles have been adopted by various legal scholars for quasi-contracts,
which lack any element of contract yet are enforceable against a specific person.” They are
dubbed "quasi-contracts" because they are enforceable against a specific person and resemble
contractual obligations to some extent. The name "quasi-contract" is admittedly perplexing
because it is conflated with one of the species in the genus of contract law, despite the fact
that they are not contractual at all. A quasi-contract can be defined as an obligation other than
a contract that binds the defendant to return, reimburse, or compensate what he should not
and ought not to retain in the eyes of the law. As a result, quasi-contracts arise without the
need for a contract or a tort. It is only a must.

CURRENT STATUS IN REGARD TO QUASI-CONTRACTS

There are certain reservations about the current state of the quasi-contract theory. Writers,
judges, and attorneys all claim that the rationale behind quasi-contracts is still unknown. In
any scenario, consideration of the ideas of "ex acquo et bonum and equity" is still required
for enforcing a Quasi-Contractual obligation. However, it should be noted that in the
twentieth century, we can no longer obtain a remedy through the use of a writ because they

102
have been buried. The passing of the judicature acts in 1873 and 1875 established an unified
procedure today. As a result, there is no need to use a legal fiction today. We can no longer
support the “implied contract” argument on the basis of procedural convenience and logic in
the twentieth century. If we go by the "implied contract" theory, we'll have to admit that
quasi-contracts are covered by contract law, which isn't the case.

The concept of a quasi-contract occurs in the absence of a contract. As a result, the

compromising position in the framework of Quasi-contracts logic cannot be justified. And, if
it is noted that “unjust enrichment” theory is exclusively sufficient to explain the true nature
and rationale of quasi-contracts, it will not be an unbelievable or surprising fact: unjust
enrichment theory will provide justice effectively and on a sound basis, while “implied
contract” theory will disturb the true nature of quasi-contracts. 73 Lord Mansfield owes the
proponents of "implied contract" a debt of gratitude in that he revealed the true nature and
rationale of quasi contract, which is both practicable and compelling. The majority
judgement, it is said, continues to favour Lord Mansfield and value his study in relation to the
nature and justification of quasi contract.

In the most recent and comprehensive analysis of English quasi-contracts, Its logic has been
adopted by Mr. Goff and Mr. Gareth Jones as the principle of unjust benefit or unjust
enrichment. Three things are required for this principle to work. First, that the defendant has
benefited from receiving a benefit, second, that he has benefited at the plaintiff's expense, and
third, that allowing him to keep the gain would be unjust. 74 Anyone can become perplexed
while studying these three notions since they go beyond the customary line between law and
equity. As a result, it is necessary to consider the status of quasi-contracts in both England
and India.

POSITION OF QUASI-CONTRACTS UNDER LAW OF ENGLAND

In their book "The Law of Restitution," Goff and Jones distinguish three types of restitution:
where the defendant obtained a benefit from or through the plaintiff's act; where the
defendant obtained a benefit from a third party for which he must account to the plaintiff; and
where the defendant obtained a benefit through his wrongful act. In this analysis, a distinction

103
is attempted between genuine quasi contracts and those claims whose position as quasi-
contractual is questioned.

Quasi-Contracts that are genuine For the sake of convenience, the situations that are typically
acknowledged as real quasi contracts can be divided into six categories. The following are
some of them: -

One party's payment for the use of the defendant If one party is forced to pay money for
which the other is responsible, the other party may sue for the amount paid. Two points must
be emphasised in this circumstance.

To substantiate his assertion, the former must show:

- a. That he was compelled to pay the money; and that it was money for which the latter was
legally responsible. This type of quasi-contract in English law is similar to the category of
quasi-contract specified in section 69 of Indian Contract Law 1872, which deals with
reimbursement by a person paying money owing to another in which he is interested: - A
person who is interested in the payment of money that another is legally obligated to pay and
so pays it is entitled to reimbursement from the other.

Expenses incurred as a result of a blunder “Where money is paid to another under the
influence of a mistake, that is, on the supposition that the specific fact is true, which would
entitle the other to the money, but which in fact is untrue, and the money would not have
been paid if the payer had known the fact was untrue, an action will lie to recover it back,”
according to the general rule.

The following are five points that must be mentioned in this article:

- In order for the plaintiff to be entitled to recover, the mistake on which he acted must be one
of fact and not of law, despite the fact that section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, makes
no distinction between the two.

The plaintiff's mistake does not have to have occurred as a result of any purported contract.

The usual rule is that if the person who paid the money knew it was not due, he has no right
to collect it. He is not entitled to reclaim the money in this case due to his carelessness.
However, there is one exception to this rule, which is that the money is not recoverable if the
court determines that the plaintiff paid it at his own risk, regardless of the true status of the

104
circumstances. Whereas carelessness will not stop the plaintiff, recklessness or indifference
will.

The courts have long debated whether a mistake led the plaintiff to believe he was legally
obligated to pay money or whether a completely voluntary payment is equally recoverable.
“In order to entitle a person to recover money paid under a mistake of fact, the mistake must
be as to a fact, which, if true, would make the person paying liable to pay the money; but not
where, if true, it would merely make it desirable that he should pay the money,” Bramwell B
wrote in Aiken v. Short 76.

A plaintiff may be barred from relying on his mistake if he misrepresented to the defendant
that the money was due and the defendant spent money that he would not have spent
otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that he is entitled to the payment prima facie. This type of
quasi-contract in English law is similar to section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, with
the exception that Indian law does not distinguish between faults of fact and mistakes of law,
whereas English law does.

Amounts Paid to Comply with Unenforceable Contracts: -

These contracts cover a wide range of situations in which the plaintiff has paid money to the
defendant in the course of a transaction that he believes is a contract but turns out to be
invalid. Total lack of consideration; money paid in pursuit of void contracts; money paid in
pursuance of illegal contracts are the three types of situations that fall under this category.

A third party possessed and received money for plaintiff's use: -

For a better understanding of the aforementioned collection of quasi contracts, the following
illustration can be used:

- Illustration: Assume that A pays money to B and asks B to pay it to C; alternatively that B
has a fund belonging to A in his possession, and A instructs B to pay C from this fund. Can C
sue B if B fails to follow his instructions? It is evident that there is no contract between C and
B, and it is also clear that the mere fact that B may have a contractual obligation to A and that
A intends to benefit C will not allow C to suit B, because C will be met, at least at common
law, by the doctrine of privity. Nonetheless, in a number of cases, it has been decided that

105
once B has told C that he is ready and prepared to pay the money, C may sue B in quasi-
contract if B fails to do so.

A QUANTUM MERUIT-BASED CLAIM

The plaintiff was found to be the author of various dramatic entertainments in Plinche v.
Colburn77. He was hired by the defendants, the publishers of "The Juvenile Library," to
prepare an essay for that publication that would depict the history of Armour and Costumes
from the beginning, for which he was to be paid 100 guineas. When the defendants stopped
publishing "The Juvenile Library," the plaintiff drew numerous drawings and wrote a
substantial chunk of a novel. For the part he had prepared and the hardship he had caused in
the business, the plaintiff demanded a sum of 50 guineas. That claim was found to be valid.
Thus, if a party has done some work or performed some services in the fulfilment of his
contract and the other party has rendered the work or service useless, the party may collect
appropriate remuneration for the labour or service.

Two sorts of scenarios can be used to show the position of quantum meruit in a quasi
contract.

In the first circumstance, the plaintiff may claim reimbursement for labour performed in
accordance with the contract, which has been discharged due to the defendant's default. In
such instances, quantum meruit may be a viable alternative to a breach-of-contract action.
The second example is of the use of the quantum meruit as a quasi-contractual remedy is to
be found where the plaintiff has rendered services in pursuance of a transaction, supposed by
him to be a contract, but which in truth, is without legal validity.

POSITION OF QUASI-CONTRACTS UNDER INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Although the Indian Contract Act of 1872 makes no mention of the justification for quasi-
contracts. It hasn't defined what a quasi-contract is or what constitutes a quasi-contract.
Sections 68 to 72 of the act outline circumstances in which a person is legally obligated to
reimburse, refund, or compensate money, property, or other items of monetary worth. The
subject matter of sections 68 to 72 of the act is not the nature or rationale of the act.

106
The Indian courts have played a key role in repeating the unjust enrichment argument as the
precise justification for quasi-contracts. 80 In Indian law, there is no equivalent to the English
word "quasi-contracts." The contract act's sections 68 to 72 deal with some legal
responsibilities that exist independently of a contract. Although the responsibilities have been
recorded in an Indian contract book, this does not imply that the duties dealt with under
sections 68 to 72 of the Contract Act of 1872 are contractual in character, notwithstanding
their resemblance. Sections 68 to 72 dealt with the forms of obligations that fall within the
umbrella of quasi-contracts in English law. Indian judges have ruled, based on the same
parallel, that sections 68 to 72 include certain examples of quasi-contract, as the Mysore High
Court noted81. “In courts, the tendency of individuals to benefit at the expense of others, to
refuse compensation to those who have assisted them in appropriating the fruit, is not
favoured, and the idea of “unjust enrichment” is frequently invoked to achieve the goals of
Justice.”

The nature of the contract act's legislative provisions precludes the use of implicit contract
theory, while it has been addressed in some circumstances.

82 Adoption of the unjust enrichment theory is preferable to the implied contract theory, and
it should be given special consideration and focus since it explains the true nature and
purpose of quasi-contracts.

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT OF 1872 CONTAINS SPECIFIC LEGAL

PROVISIONS:

Parties exchange advantages to realise only in a void contract since there are no binding
contractual stipulations of the transaction. The same thing happens when a voidable contract
is voided: exchanges take place without the assistance of contractual terms. Parties may
exchange commodities and advantages in the hopes of securing a contract that does not
materialise in some situations. Life insurance firms, for example, may collect an advance
premium using the offer document alone. Should a person be able to keep what he or she
receives? The notion of "no one should benefit himself at the expense of others," or "no one
should enrich himself at the expense of others," is an old one. Every civilization has been
exposed to it. 83 It became known as the "principle of restoration" during the development of
common law.

107
Today's law is divided into various branches. The majority of them were created in the
twentieth century. Contracts, trust, and equity were the only branches available previously.
The notion of restitution was closer to the contract at the time. There was benefit flow
between the parties, just like in a contract. As a result, it was classified as a quasi-contract
under contract law, meaning that it is not a contract but may appear to be one. 84 It was later
formed as a separate topic by common law. Lord Wright summarised the field's evolution in
Fibrosa v. Fairbairn85: "Any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases
of what has been called "unjust enrichment" or "unjust benefit," that is, to prevent a man from
keeping the money of, or some benefit derived from, another which he should not keep.

Such remedies under English law are distinct from those available in contract or tort, and are
now classified as belonging to a third category of common law known as quasi contract or
restitution.”

86 The principle is codified in Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act, named "Quasi-
Contract." This chapter does not address the rights or duties arising from a contract, but rather
those arising from relationships that are similar to those arising from a contract. 87 Contract
implied in law or quasi-contract refers to certain contractual-like relationships. It is not a true
contract or, as it is known, a consensual contract based on the parties' consent.

These obligations arose from a legal fiction. It may become necessary to hold one person
accountable to another even if there is no agreement between them, on the grounds that
otherwise he would be keeping money or some other benefit to which the law considers the
other person to be entitled, or on the grounds that the other would unjustly suffer loss without
such accountability. In such cases, the law of quasi-contract exists to provide relief. 89
According to some writers90, liability arises in quasi-contracts to prevent unfair enrichment,
and the courts do not consider the parties' purpose or agreement in doing so. The opposing
viewpoint is that it is based on a hypothetical contract that is implied by law. Only if a
contract can be implied by law, according to this limited perspective, can quasi-contractual
responsibility emerge.

SECTIONS 68 AND 69 ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF SECTIONS 68 AND 69:

After going over the bare language of section 68, it can be deduced that the following are the
essentials of this section:- Necessaries are being supplied, Necessaries so supplied must be

108
suited to the condition of life of the person to whom they are supplied, Necessaries are being
supplied to a person who is incapable of entering into a contract or anyone whom he is
legally obligated to support,

SECTION 69 CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIABILITY UNDER SECTION

69

The following are the key conditions for responsibility under this section:

It is necessary to be interested in making a payment.

The plaintiff must be interested in making a payment as the first prerequisite for proving
culpability. The plaintiff's interest in being protected must, of course, be legally identifiable.
This provision in Indian law is more expansive than the one in English law. In English law,
the individual making the payment must have been legally obliged to pay the debt or release
the other person's liability. In India, it is sufficient that the plaintiff has an interest in making
the payment. In Munni Bibi v. Triloki Nath95, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the
plaintiff's honest belief that he has an interest to protect is sufficient to entitle him with
compensation under this provision.

One should not be obligated to pay.

The plaintiff must not be obligated to pay, which is the second crucial criterion. He should
solely be concerned with paying the payment in order to safeguard his own interests. When a
person is jointly obliged to pay, paying the other person's portion does not grant him a right
of recovery under this provision.

Someone else must be legally obligated to pay.

Third, the defendant should have been required to pay the money under law. After some
deliberation, the phrase "bound by law" has come to denote "bound by law or by contract." It
is not required for the liability to be limited to statutory liability. According to a Privy
Council decision, it is sufficient that "the defendant at the suit of any person would be
compelled to pay." As the Madras High Court decided in Raghavan v. Alameru Ammal,98,
when a person is morally obligated but not legally compelled to pay, he would not be
obligated to pay the party who fulfils his moral commitment.

109
A payment must be made from one party to another.

Finally, rather than paying himself, the Plaintiff should have paid someone else. In Secretary
of State for India v. Fernandez, 99, a specific government was a tenent of a land and paid
itself the arrears of the land revenue owing to itself out of the rent due to the landlord, which
the government could not recover from the landlord. Because this is not a "payment to
another," it did not fall under the premise of this section.

SECTION 70

Conditions that must be met in order to be held liable under Section 70

In State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and sons100, the Supreme Court determined that the
following conditions must be met for liability under this section to arise: a person must
lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him; he must not intend to
act gratuitously in doing so or delivering the said thing; and the other person must be a
natural person.

There is no aim of performing the deed for no reason.

One of the goals of this section is to ensure payment to someone who has freely done
something for someone else with the expectation of being compensated. He should have
thought about getting paid from the start. In P.Mudaliar v. Neelavathi Ammal101, it was
determined that the act was not done gratuitously and that compensation could be sought. It
was also held in Municipal Council, Rajgarh v. MPSRTC102 that the Municipal Council,
which built and maintained a bus stop, was allowed to recover some charges from bus
operators who used the stop despite the fact that there was no agreement to that effect.

Section 70 discourages intrusive meddling in other people's affairs:

Second, unless the person to whom the act is performed has the option to refuse the services,
the person to whom the act is performed is not obligated to pay. If someone provides
something to another, the latter has the option of refusing to take it and returning it; in that

110
instance, section 70 would not apply. To put it another way, the person who is liable under
section 70 always has the option of refusing the object. Only where he willingly takes the
thing or enjoys the labour done does he become liable under section 70. The courts have had
to strike a balance between two criteria while applying this approach. The following are the
two factors: - The rule cannot be used by anyone to intervene in the affairs of another. 103 A
person will not be forced to pay for services that have been imposed on him against his will
by the court.

Services should be provided without the need for a request.

The final need is that services should have been provided without prompting. However,
reasonable compensation for services given upon request may be recovered. The Supreme
Court held this in the case of State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons. 104 Because this
is a leading authority on the subject, the facts of this case must be briefly reviewed here. The
following are some of them: - In this case, the plaintiff built a kutcha road, guard room,
office, and other facilities for the government's Civil Supplies Department at the request of a
West Bengal officer. The State accepted the work but attempted to avoid culpability by
claiming that no contract had been made in accordance with section 175(3) of the
Government of India Act 1935. (now Article 299 of the Constitution of India).

The state government further claimed that adopting section 70 would effectively allow the
mandatory elements of section 175 to be ignored (3). The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
stated unequivocally that section 175(3) had no bearing on the matter. Contracts were not
recognised under section 175(3) unless they were properly executed, whereas section 70 only
applied if there was no legitimate contract. Because there was no legitimate agreement
between the parties in this matter, section 70 applied. The judge, on the other hand, came to
the conclusion that Mondale and his sons, as well as the officers 103, were guilty. Muthu
Raman v. Chinna Vellayan, 39 Mad 965. 104 AIR 1962 SC 779. 323 Muthu Raman v.
Chinna Vellayan, Muthu Raman v. Chinna Vellayan, Muthu Raman v. Chinna Vellayan,
Muthu Raman v. Chinna Vellayan, Mu As a result, the judge came to the judgement that
there was no contract between the parties, allowing section 70 to be applied. Under Section
70 of the Contract Act of 1872, the contractor was forced to try his luck with the state, and
the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the state is liable to reimburse the contractor. The
Supreme Court reiterated the premise established in this judgement in another case.

111
The services provided should be legal.

The fourth requirement of this clause is that services must have been provided in a legal
manner. It is important to note that there must be some legal link between the person seeking
compensation and the person being compensated, and that this relationship must derive from
the fact that something was done for the former that was accepted and enjoyed by the latter.

It must be a non-gratuitous act.

Fifth, the individual providing the service should not have planned to do so. The dominant
source is the Madras High Court's ruling in Damodara Mudalair v. Secretary of State for
India106. In this case, the government rebuilt a tank that indicated government-owned
territory as well as land belonging to the defendants, who were zamindars. The repairs were
not done on the government's dime. The defendants were aware of the government's repair
work and benefited from it. It was decided that the plaintiff (government) was entitled to
collect a share of the cost of repairs from the defendants in proportion to the defendants'
lands.

It is vital to take advantage of the benefit.

Finally, one of the fundamental elements that must be proven in a section 70 case is that the
defendant benefited from the plaintiff's work or the thing supplied to him. The claim under
section 70.107 is based on the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of the job done or the
product delivered. To hold someone accountable for taking advantage of a benefit, it must be
proven that the defendant had the option of accepting or rejecting the benefit, and he chose to
take it.

Quantum of compensation under section 70

When a building contractor performs "additional work" in addition to the work specified in
the contract, he is entitled to be compensated at market rate. The court will evaluate whether

112
anything is "additional" based on an understanding of the contract as a whole. Typically,
compensation is based on the market price of the commodities provided. Quantum Meruit can
only be granted if the contract does not include a predetermined price for the work
performed. C was not entitled to damages for violations of an oral lease in another case where
a written lease was not negotiated, but he was entitled to the recovery of his security deposit.
In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court concluded that there are three factors that trigger
Section 70 of the Contract Act, as defined by the Supreme Court in R.K.Mondal's case. First,
the person claiming benefits must do something legitimately for another, second, he must not
act gratuitously while doing so, and third, the other person benefits from or under the first
person's act. The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of the word "lawfully," which appears
in Section 70.

"There is no doubt that the thing delivered or done must not be delivered or done fraudulently
or dishonestly, nor must it be delivered or done gratuitously," it said. Section 70 is not
designed to consider compensation claims made by people who inadvertently interfere with
the business of others or force services on them that they do not want.” The Delhi High
Court, relying on the aforementioned decision, stated that "it is clear that Section 70 of the
Indian Contract Act would have no application where parties have acted pursuant to a
contract for the reason that the section is founded on the principle of restitution and
prevention of unjust enrichment, i.e. equity recognised by Common Law," as Lord Wright
put it in the aforementioned decision." The courts further explained that, while the
requirements of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 are certainly broad, they must be
implemented with care to achieve substantial justice in circumstances where it is difficult to
ascribe to the parties involved contractual connections. To put it another way, if parties are
bound by a contract, the contract determines their particular obligations alone, as the
Supreme Court noted in Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 116 S.Ct. Section 70,
which is based on the principles of restitution and avoidance of undue enrichment, can never
be used if the parties have entered into a contract.

SECTION 71

Despite the fact that there is no contract between the finder and the owner of the items,
section 71 places the following responsibilities on the finder of goods.

113
Under Section 71, the amount of remuneration and the finder's lien are determined.

The finder of the goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for the trouble and
expense he voluntarily incurred in preserving the goods and locating the owner; however, he
may keep the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation; and where the
owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such
reward and keep the goods until he receives such reward.

CHAPTER-6

CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS

114
In circumstances where two parties from two separate nations engage into a contract and are
regulated by two distinct legal systems, a conflict of laws may develop. It indicates that there
is always the possibility of a foreign element being involved in certain types of transactions.
The issue occurs when both legal systems are equally capable of dealing with the conflict that
arises between the parties. The two contracting parties may be from different countries, or a
contract entered into in one nation may need to be completed in another, or a corporation
entering into a contract in one country may have its place of incorporation or headquarters in
another, and so on. Because it deals with the application of the law in space and time, conflict
of laws or Private International Law is sometimes referred to as "law physics." It is the area
of a country's private law that deals with matters involving a foreign element. Private
International Law is another name for it. Private international law or international private law
are terms that are frequently used interchangeably to refer to conflict of laws.

The term "conflict of laws" is commonly used in Common Law jurisdictions (England,
Canada, and Australia, the United States, Kenya, and so on), whereas the term "private
international law" is commonly used in French, Italian, and Greek jurisdictions, as well as in
Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries. The term "international private law" is used in
Germany and German-speaking countries such as Austria, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, as
well as Russia and Scotland. When legal conflicts between federal states must be resolved
within federal systems (such as the United States and Australia), the phrase conflict of laws is
favoured solely because such situations do not entail an international concern. In most cases,
conflict of laws refers to a set of procedural rules that establish which legal system and
jurisdictions apply to a particular dispute. The principles usually apply when there is a
"foreign" aspect to a legal dispute, such as a contract signed by parties from different nations.

As a result, conflict of laws is a term that refers to legal inconsistencies regardless of whether
the legal systems in question are international or inter-state. This area of law provides a broad
understanding of how to resolve international problems as well as domestic matters involving
foreign elements. The term "conflict of laws" comes from instances in which the outcome of
a legal dispute is determined by which law is used and how the court resolves the
disagreement between those laws. However, when it refers to the settlement of conflicts
between competing systems rather than “conflict” itself, the phrase might be deceptive.
Conflict of laws is divided into three branches:

115
JURISDICTION

In a conflict of laws case, the first question is whether the forum or the court has the authority
to decide the dispute.

LEGISLATIVE OPTION

If the first question about the court's jurisdiction is answered affirmatively, the next question
is which law should be used to resolve the disagreement.

APPLICATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

The courts' ability to recognise and enforce a judgement from an external forum within the
jurisdiction of the adjudicating forum was the subject of the other question.

THE REASON FOR THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAWS

It is vital to discuss the reasons for applying foreign laws in this context. Why should a
country's courts disregard its own laws in favour of applying laws from other countries? The
causes for this can be summarised as follows:- One reason could be: To apply the parties'
reasonable and legitimate expectations to a transaction or an occurrence, for example, if two
Indians went to another country and got married there, say in France, in accordance with the
rules prescribed by French law rather than the formalities prescribed by Indian law, if Indian
laws were to be applied, the Indian courts would have to treat the parties as unmarried. To
ensure justice and avoid grave injustices, for example, in the above-mentioned situation,
Indian courts could refuse to accept or enforce a foreign ruling resolving the dispute between
the parties, but this would entail significant trouble and even injustice.

For example, if a divorce was issued in a foreign nation and one of the parties remarried
afterward, he or she may be charged with bigamy unless the foreign judgement was
recognised in India. Similarly, if a person sues and obtains a judgement in a foreign country
only to discover that the judgement debtor has secretly withdrawn all of his assets from that

116
country in order to prevent execution of the judgement, this would be a severe injustice. As a
result, it is necessary to seek the assistance of foreign laws in such cases.

Because there was a time when the doctrine of comity was thought to be a sufficient basis for
the conflict of laws, comity might be another rationale for the application of foreign laws.
Comity here refers to civility, the necessity for reciprocity, or even international law as the
acknowledged rule of mutual conduct between states, and so encompasses more than
courtesy.

To carry out the treaty obligations between the countries, it is sometimes necessary to apply
foreign laws, as application of foreign laws by a municipal court is sometimes required by
public international law, for example, Indian courts may be bound by a treaty requiring
national courts to apply foreign law.

These are some of the reasons why it is clear that foreign laws must be used in order to
ensure justice. A contract dispute before any court may have foreign elements: one or both of
the parties may be foreign, or the making or performance of the contract, or its terms, may be
connected with one or more foreign countries, e.g., a contract is entered into between the two
countries by telex; an Indian businessman sells goods to a French businessman, the goods to
be delivered and the goods to be delivered and the goods to be delivered and the goods to be
delivered and the goods to be delivered and the goods to be The question of which country's
law should prevail in a breach of contract lawsuit brought by a French customer in an Indian
court arises because the laws of India, France, and England are all distinct. Which law should
be applied by the court?

The general premise is that every international contract (i.e., a 334 contract comprising one or
more foreign parts) has a controlling law, known as the proper law of the contract, under
which disputes resulting from it are decided primarily, but not solely. The parties have the
power, subject to certain constraints, to pick the proper law of the country with which the
contract has the closest and most substantial link. As a result, if a conflict arises, the problem
that most people face is determining which law, or which law of which place, should be
applied in a particular circumstance. Because the parties are to be regulated by the
"appropriate law of contract" in such a case, the "proper law of contract" solves the dilemma.
“The law applied by English or other courts in assessing the obligations under a contract,”
according to the appropriate law definition. It's difficult to say what the right legislation is
since the law of a single country may not be sufficient to cover the entirety of the contract;

117
some aspects of the contract may be subject to one country's jurisdiction, while others may be
subject to another. Thus, in such a case, deciding which country's law should be deemed the
correct law is extremely difficult, as the laws of both countries are equally competent to deal
with the issue, but not entirely?

SELECTION OF THE APPROPRIATE LAW

There has always been a debate about whether the location of contracting or the place of
performance should be the criterion for determining which law should be applied to a
contract dispute between two parties. However, the liberty of the parties in this topic has been
recognised under Indian and English private international law, and the parties are regarded to
be free to pick any law to govern their contract. This freedom of choice is subject to some
limitations, because it may sometimes imply ignoring the application of a law that would
otherwise be relevant. This decision renders the applicable law inapplicable in specific
circumstances. The court will give effect to the parties' choice of law, subject to certain
limitations. This decision might be made explicitly or implicitly.

Express Choice

When a contract has a clause that specifies the law by which it will be regulated in the event
of a future conflict, the decision is deemed express. It is preferable for the parties to an
international contract to include such a phrase in their agreement to minimise the uncertainty
that could occur if the proper law could not be determined. However, they frequently fail to
do so or are unable to agree on which law will dominate in the event of a future conflict.

Implied Decision

When there is no express choice of suitable law in the contract, the proper law is "the system
of law by reference to which the contract was negotiated or that with which the transaction
has its closest and most substantial link," as Lord Simonds put it in a case. The first portion of
the "Bonython Formula" refers to the parties' inferred choice, which is what we're concerned
with right now. When the parties have made no express or inferred choice, the second phase
kicks in. The court can infer the system of law under which the contract was created, i.e. an
implied or tacit choice of law, from the contract's wording or form, as well as the surrounding
circumstances. A choice of forum clause, which states that the parties agree that the courts of
a specific country will have jurisdiction, or a clause stating that any dispute arising from the

118
contract will be decided by arbitration in a specific country, is the most common example of
an implied choice of governing law. Arbitration clauses are prevalent in commercial
contracts, and where the contract is international, it may specify the country in which
arbitration will take place. Because the parties are most likely to have meant the court or
arbitrators to apply their own law, an arbitration provision or a choice of forum generates a
strong presumption that the parties intended the law of the country in question to rule.

Another prominent example of an implied choice is the inclusion of vocabulary or concepts

unique to a given law, which is often included in a standard form created against that law's
backdrop. In this scenario, it's reasonable to assume that the parties intended for the
legislation in question to apply. In one case6, a Kuwaiti insurance company provided the
defendants a marine insurance policy in Kuwait for a ship owned by the plaintiffs, a Liberian
company doing business in Dubai. The policy was based on a Lloyd's form found in the
English Marine Insurance Act 1906's schedule. The House of Lords ruled that English law,
not Kuwaiti law, was the correct one.

The parties must have meant English law to govern, given the policy's English wording,
which could only be understood in light of English law. This conclusion was strengthened by
the fact that Kuwait did not have a maritime insurance law at the time the contract was
signed. It implies that the parties must have meant to apply English law in the event of a
future disagreement.

The Law of Validation

When a contract, or a specific provision in a contract, is valid under one law but not another,
the court may infer a tacit choice of the validating law on the basis that the parties must have
intended their contract to be valid, not void. For example, in a case7, there was an exemption
clause that was void under Massachusetts law but was valid under the law of New York. The
parties must have wanted the contents of their contract, including the exemption clause, to be
legitimate, so English law was ruled to be the competent law. The presumption that the
parties must have meant the validating law to be the controlling law is sometimes dismissed
as a fiction, because it is possible that the parties were unaware that the contract was void
under one law but valid under another. It amounts to a reasonable presumption in favorem

119
validatis, or in favour of an international contract's validity. Unless and until something to the
contrary shows, the court will consider the applicable law to be the law that validates, rather
than invalidates, the contract. The contract's ties to the country may be close enough to
necessitate a decision that its law is the prevailing law, but any decision that invalidates the
contract will not be considered legitimate law.

On this basis, it would be preferable to interpret the contract's validity under a single law as
important not to the parties' intentions, but to the question that arises in the absence of a
choice by the parties: which nation is the contract's most closely connected? A legitimate
contract is unquestionably more effective than one that is invalid. “If one seeks to extract the
intentions of two businessmen, one may consider it as they wanted to do what was most
convenient,” Langton J said in case 8. The fact that the contract is related to another that is
regulated by a particular law, and the fact that one of the contract's parties is a government,
from which it can be concluded that its law was intended to govern, are two more
considerations that might be relied upon as indicators of an implied choice. The fact that both
parties live or do business in the same nation may be a strong indicator of purpose, as parties
are likely to contract with each other under their respective laws. Despite all of these
elements, none of them may be regarded conclusive for courts to conclude that where a
contract is clearly most intimately linked to one nation, the parties are unlikely to have
implicitly intended that the law of another country control it.

Restraints on the ability to pick the appropriate law

One of the benefits of having the authority to choose the correct law is that it provides the
parties with assurance about the controlling law from the start. Another can be described as in
domestic contract law systems, the parties are largely free to determine the terms of their
contract for themselves, from which the right to choose the governing law follows as an
obvious and rational enlargement. The domestic contract rules are primarily voluntary, and
are intended to fill in the gaps in the contract, but they give way to the parties' agreement to
the contrary. Why should the parties to an international contract, rather than making explicit
provisions for specific topics, just agree on which law will be applied to fill in the gaps?
Although the parties are free to choose the appropriate law, they are limited in their ability to
do so. These restrictions can be explained as follows: mandatory domestic law; the law of the

120
country with which the contract is most closely associated; and the law of the country with
which the contract is most closely associated.

Convenience and business efficiency are the centre of gravity.

Domestic law norms that must be followed The required rules of domestic law are one of the
constraints on the parties' ability to pick the correct law. The complication is that some
domestic contract terms are not discretionary, but required, meaning they apply regardless of
the parties' agreement to the contrary. These rules can take many different forms, such as
laws that make contracts worthless due to public policy concerns, or rules that invalidate
provisions, such as exemption clauses, in order to protect a weaker party.

The question of whether a mandatory domestic regulation will apply to a specific

international contract depends on whether the parties choose the legislation in question or
another law, which appears to be contradictory. Furthermore, it does not appear to be
consistent with the nature of a necessary rule for the applicability of these regulations to be
contingent on the parties' choice. If the parties are given complete freedom to choose the
governing law, there will be no way to avoid the mandatory rules of the country with which
the contract is most closely associated, which may be designed to protect the public interest
or the interests of a specific group, such as employees or consumers.

This is the most significant practical impediment to unlimited choice of governing legislation.
Furthermore, there is a chance that the choice was made primarily for the benefit of the
stronger party, which could be unfair to the weaker party. When one considers the opposite
side of the coin, it is arguably unfavourable: the contract is void under the law chosen by the
parties, but valid under the law of the country with which the deal is most closely associated.
In such a case, it would be illogical to use the law chosen by the parties to invalidate their
contract when they may not have intended it to extend to that degree, and they will almost
certainly maintain their contract's validity.

The only general limitation on the parties' choice of controlling law, according to the court in
a prominent judgement, is that it must be done with bona fide intention and must be valid.
The most basic prerequisite for choosing a legislation is that it be genuine. In general, it is
thought that it will not be so in Vita Foods Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd. if the sole
reason for choosing the law in question was to avoid invalidity under the law that would

121
apply if there was no choice. ten The law of the country with which the contract has the
strongest ties There was a period when the courts believed that the right law should always be
credited to the parties' intentions. In the event where there was no express choice, an implicit
choice was discovered. Various assumptions about the implicit choice had been evolved
through time and have now mostly been abandoned. However, the past tendency has shifted
in recent years. When there is no clear or implied option, the relevant law is the law of the
country with which the contract has the closest and most direct relationship. In this regard,
the court considers important factors such as: the place or places where the contract was
made; the place or places where the contract was performed; the parties' connection to the
countries; the situs of any immovable property that is the subject of the contract; the country
where the ship is registered, on which the goods are to be carried; and the currency. A few
questions arise, to which the courts must respond.

The following are the questions:

 What criteria should be used to determine which country or legislation the contract is
most closely related to?
 Why is it reasonable to apply that governing law?

Although the answers to these questions are not always clear, it is sometimes believed that
the law of the country with the closest link should be applied because it is the law that
reasonable parties would choose if they had considered the disagreement earlier. This
demonstrates that the prevailing law is suitable, but it does not answer the question of why 10
Golden Acres Ltd. v. Queens Land Estates Pty Ltd is appropriate. Any law may only be
regarded appropriate for one of two reasons: it must be in the best interests of the contracting
parties or it must be in the best interests of the country whose law is to be applied.

However, there may be a clash between the parties' interests and the national interest. In
general, the parties' interests in their contract are regarded valid, whereas the country's
interests are considered genuine only when its policy necessitates the contract, or a portion of
it, to be invalidated. “Will the interests of the parties or the interests of the countries prevail?”
is the question. In the situations, there is no logical response to this question.

Gravity's Center

122
When the country's interest, i.e., ensuring that its policy is applied when it is suitable, is
emphasised, the factors that connect the contract with two or more countries are regarded the
basis of the proper law. These elements are referred to as its localising elements. These are
found in the country where they are most closely grouped, which serves as the contract's
focal point and source of controlling law. This notion is sometimes referred to as the "hub of
gravity" or "centre of gravity," and it can be justified on the basis that the contract's elements
are most closely gathered in the country whose interests and policies are most likely to be
influenced by the contract. This idea normally entails a record of the contract's link with
several countries, but where there is no obvious indication of a connection with one country,
the weight or eminence of the various elements must be evaluated.

As a result, "the site of performance" is sometimes considered the most essential aspect, and
it is evident that whenever any single factor weighs more than others in these concerns, it is
referred to as a lex loci solution. When the entire performance on both sides is to be in the
same country, the meaning of this factor might be explained on the basis that a contract is
more likely to intrude on the interests of a country if it is to be done in that country rather
than abroad. Another factor to consider is that either one or both parties must be citizens of
the country in question, or the subject matter must be located there.

Business Efficiency and Convenience

When the parties' interests are prioritised over the countries', the contract's tight link is
assessed in terms of commercial efficiency and convenience. This is the criterion that also
reveals the parties' inferred preference. Despite the fact that these elements are frequently
discussed, the courts have not taken the approach of providing broad guidance on the subject
of which countries have the most substantial links in this regard. As a result, some variables,
such as the place of contracting or the location of performance, are given less weight than the
parties' relationships with nations, such as where they do business or live, because it is
generally more convenient for a party to have his own law as the ruling law. Furthermore,
when it comes to the parties' interests, the law of the country to which the parties belong is
usually the correct law. As a result, answering the question of which party's law should be
preferred in an international contract is difficult.

While it appears that the above-mentioned variables underpin the concept of closest link and
its determination, they are not explicitly mentioned in the judgments. There is no trouble
when the contract's connection to one country is evident, but the challenge occurs when the

123
judges are evenly balanced. In such cases, it's unclear whether the search is for the country or
for the legal system with which the contract is most closely associated. While the references
in the instances are in relation to the legal system, both are regarded important. After
considering the individual's ties, the court's preference for a centre of gravity approach
(country) or a convenience and efficiency approach (system of law) may determine how close
the individual is to the country or the system of law (system of law). As a result, Parties are
not free to engage into any contract that excludes the application of a "authoritative
regulation" but otherwise applies to their transaction. Furthermore, parties are not permitted
to designate a specific foreign law as the ruling law in their dispute. If there is any ambiguity
in the agreement regarding the choice of law, for example, if a clause states that the flag of
the vessel carrying the goods will be the governing law, and the goods are likely to be carried
by different vessels flying different flags, the agreement will not be given effect to, and will
not be enforced, because the clause is ambiguous. 13 Because there is no specific test for
choosing a law (that is not clearly stated in the agreement), if a dispute occurs between the
parties, the court must apply the objective test or whatever a reasonable person would have
anticipated in such an agreement. Singleton L.J. held this in The Assunzione's case. It means
that the court must determine what is the correct law for the parties, but only in the opinion of
an ordinary prudent person, as if he had entered into the contract and meant the same at the
time of forming the deal.

Furthermore, it is believed that all terms of the contract, such as the parties' intentions and
the surrounding facts, must be considered if this question is to be decided by the court. An
ordinary prudent person would prefer to resolve a conflict, if one exists, in the most expedient
manner possible while adhering to business norms and ethics. Such individuals choose the
legal system with which the transaction has the closest and most direct connection. However,
it is not necessary that all of the facts in a particular case have a close and real connection
with only one system of law; some facts may have a close connection with one system of law,
while others may have a real connection with another system of law, and in such a conflicting
situation, the court must consider both systems of law.

In one of its decisions, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that the applicable law is "the
law of the nation in which its elements are most densely gathered and with which the facts of
the contract have the most intimate and genuine connection." Other high courts in India have
followed the Supreme Court's judgement, such as the Calcutta High Court, which in a case
stated its support for the application of the idea of contract localization for the determination

124
of suitable law. The court stated that it appears that the law has now been resolved. The
contract's localization is a better technique to determine the proper legislation. Contracts must
be governed by legislation that naturally pertains to the contract and may be determined
objectively in light of all facts. In this instance, the Calcutta High Court went on to say that
the fundamental aspects of the contract had the strongest ties to Bombay, implying that the
right law of contract is Bombay law, or Indian law.

It is necessary to explore the Assunzione case20 here in order to gain a better grasp of the
concept of "appropriate law," and in order to do so, one must first review the circumstances
of the case, which are as follows: “French traders had leased the Italian steamer Assunzione
to transport grain from Dunkirk to Venice. The charter-part was written in English, with a
supplement written in French, “Paris, 7th October 1949,” indicating that the agreement had
been reached in France. The debate was whether the claimed charter-party would be
controlled by Italian or French law. The charter-party was executed in Paris; the supplement
to the charter-party (in English) was written in French; the bills of lading were written in
French and were in French standard form; and the charterers were French brokers operating
on behalf of the French government.

The following points pointed to Italian law: the ship was Italian-owned and flew an Italian
flag; 80% of the freight was to be paid in Italian currency; any demurrage or damages for
detention at both loading and discharging ports were to be paid in Italian currency; the place
of performance, i.e., delivery place, was Venice, Italy; and the bills of lading were to be paid
in Italian currency. The ruling in favour of applying Italian law was made. The fact that the
freight and demurrage were paid in Italian money, as well as the fact that it was an Italian
ship with a destination in an Italian port, counted heavily in favour of the Italian legislation.

THE FORUM'S CHOICE

In some nations, parties have the option of choosing their own judge or arbitrator to resolve
their disagreement. Furthermore, the parties may choose the law that the tribunal will apply in
that particular location. In the event that the parties do not declare the specific law that the
tribunal must follow, English Private International Law is available to help. In English
Private International Law, there is a rule known as elegit judicem elegit Jus, which states that
the implied choice of law can be derived from the tribunal's express choice of law. 21 The
Latin term "lex-fori," which means "law of the forum," is relevant here. In practise, this

125
means that once the parties have chosen a particular tribunal, the law of that forum should
control the parties' dispute.

In Hamlyn's case, the question was whether an action under the contract could be brought in
Scotland because of the arbitration clause. Thus, in response to this question, the House of
Lords decided that a contract was regulated by English law, which made the arbitration
clause lawful, and that the Scottish courts had no authority to determine on the merits of the
matter until the arbitration failed. “The present case solved the conflicting situation in a very
good manner,” Lord Herschel, L.C. observed in this case. He went on to say, "I believe the
text of the arbitration clause quite clearly indicates that the parties intended for their rights
under that section to be adjudicated under English law."

The House of Lords observed in the James Miller case that if the contract with reference to
arbitration had been controlled by the law of a country that had no genuine and close
connection with the deal, it would have been null and void. It is illogical to blame the parties
for an intention that was not theirs in the first place. As a result, there is no trouble
interpreting the contract in terms that could be interpreted as indicating that the contract or a
specific element of the contract was to be regulated by the law of a specific country. In
another case, the Court of Appeal held that the natural inference from the choice of English
arbitration was also about the choice of English law, because the parties' disputes were to be
resolved by arbitration in London, and this choice raises an irresistible inference that
overrides all other factors. However, the parties' freedom of choice of law was subject to
certain constraints, such as that by choosing such jurisdictions, they could not avoid
obligations that would otherwise have arisen under the law with which the contract had the
most real and closest link. This may be explained by the Court of Appeal's conclusion in the
Tornis case. 26 The parties could not evade the peremptory rule impacting the establishment
of contractual obligations in this case, hence the bills of lading were regulated by English
law, assuming that The Hague Rules applied.

CONTRACT FORMATION

The formation of a legitimate contract is dependent on a number of factors, including the

presence of an offer that is accepted by the other party with his free consent. It means that
elements such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, or mistake, lawful
consideration, and the parties' capacity to make the contract should not void the consent. It is

126
not required for the laws of different countries to be identical on any of these components.
Different countries' rules and regulations regulating the establishment of a legitimate contract
may differ, resulting in a conflict of laws in this area as well. Essentially, the issue here is one
of ruling law, i.e., whether the law intended by the parties, lox-loci contractus, or some other
law should be the governing law in such instances. It is vital to explore all of these factors
briefly here in order to resolve the conflictual dilemma that these elements have created.

Offer and Acceptance

Offer and acceptance are required aspects for the formation of a valid contract, however
different nations have varied standards in this regard. When a contract is made by post, for
example, as in English and Indian law, the communication of acceptance, and hence the
contract, is completed when the letter of acceptance is posted. Even if the letter of acceptance
is delayed or lost in transit, the contract is still regarded binding. However, in certain
countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Germany, the contract is not deemed
finalised until the offeror receives the acceptance letter. Whenever there is a dispute about the
enforceability of a contract between parties who are subject to different legal systems, the
conflict of laws will result in disagreements in the end. For example, if a letter of offer is sent
from Delhi to Germany and a letter of acceptance is sent from Germany, but the acceptance
letter is lost in transit, a valid contract is made under Indian law, but no contract is considered
concluded under German law. If the contracting parties are from the same place, that is, the
same country, there will be no issue in enforcing the contract, and the controlling law will be
lex locus contractus. The law of the place where the contract is made is known as lex locus
contractus. When parties from various places with different legal systems engage into a
contract, the question of whether the contract should be submitted to the suitable law, i.e., the
law that would be the proper law in the objective sense if the contract had been properly
worded, arises. Paras Diwan, Dicey, and Morris, as well as certain other judicial authority,
have stated similar views.

Contracting Capacity

There are some guiding rules that have shown to be useful in determining the legislation that
should be applied to determine a contracting party's capacity. As such, there are no legal

127
precedents in favour of any of these rules. The lex loci contractus, for example, should be the
dominant law in determining the parties' contractual ability. This approach was utilised in
several old English rulings, and it was also accepted in writings by some prominent jurists
and writers. However, according to O.Kahn-Fruend, “it would not be appropriate in all issues
affecting commercial contracts to apply the principle of “lex loci contractus,” which implies
the law of the location where the contract is made, especially if the contract is established by
writing or over the phone.” There are various causes for this test's failure, such as if a person
lacks the capacity to contract in one location, he may choose a location where such incapacity
does not exist to engage into the contract. Lex domicilii, or the law of the location where the
parties have domicile, is another criteria for determining the parties' capacity. This, too, has
proven to be unsatisfactory. Because this can be a significant barrier in the field of trade and
commerce, because a person's incapacity follows them wherever they go, it would be
unreasonable for a person over the age of eighteen to be able to avoid liability for the price of
goods sold and delivered to him in a London shop on the basis that he is still an infant under
his lex domicilii.

The parties can abuse the use of this principle because it is unjustified. One of the concerns is
that, under the guise of this principle, a person who is incapable of contracting could impose
competence on himself by opting for the law of a country with which the contract has no
significant ties. The above-mentioned tests have a number of reasonable and serious
objections to their applicability. Finally, the right law of contract has been regarded as the
law that should be applied for the purpose of assessing capacity since it has the closest and
most direct connection to the contract. Furthermore, it would provide required flexibility, and
courts would be able to determine cases by taking into account a variety of significant
contract-related issues. Despite the possibility that one thing, namely, the proper law
governing one party's capacity may differ from the one governing the other party's capacity,
or that the essential validity of the contract may be subject to one proper law while the
question of capacity is subject to another, it is considered a just and reasonable test. This test
has also been accepted by Cheshire, O.Kahn-Freund, and Diwan.

Consideration

Different rules in different legal systems govern the issue of consideration. In some systems
of law, such as India, England, and the United States, the presence of consideration is

128
required for the legality of a contract, whereas in others, such as Scotland, Germany, and
France, an agreement is lawful even without consideration. In later legal systems, only an
expression to commit oneself in explicit language is required. With the use of an example, the
contrast between the various systems regarding the doctrine of contemplation can be better
appreciated. i.e., although in India, consideration provided by the promisee or any other
person is considered valid, in English law, consideration must be provided by the promisee
and no one else. Because this is a subject involving the formation of a contract, which is
controlled by section 2(d), the Indian Contract Act, 1872, will be the appropriate legislation
to apply to the formation of a contract. In Bonacine's case, the promisor's property in respect
of which the action was brought was in England, but all other material facts connected with
the contract were exclusively connected with Italy, so the contract was governed by Italian
law, and despite the lack of consideration, the contract was found to be valid and enforceable.

Contractual responsibilities are affected by a variety of factors.

In terms of contractual obligations, it is generally assumed that if a contract has been

legitimately entered into, the law of the location in question is the applicable law, however
there are some issues here. One of them is what constitutes appropriate contract performance
such that the promisor is released from his contractual obligations as a result of such
performance. There is always the possibility that the lex loci solutionis and the proper law are
not the same when it comes to the fulfilment of a certain contract. The courts will have to
decide which law will apply in such a case. Similarly, in the case of contract termination,
similar issues can occur, such as termination due to impossibility, illegality, novation,
outbreak of war, and insolvency, among others. Another major problem is that the lex loci
contractus, or lex loci solutionis, or proper law, may not be the same, and in such a case, the
question of the legality of the contract may emerge, which means that the validity of a
contract can be examined according to which law. As a result, while considering a lawsuit,
the courts must consider many aspects of a contract, and in such event, the contract should be
read by the contract itself in order to determine what the parties intended when they entered
into the contract.

129
As a result, it is necessary to first decide which legislation should be used for such
interpretations, and then to make the interpretations on that basis. Most crucially, in the event
of a contract violation, the issue of determining damages always arises. In such
circumstances, the court must additionally decide two other issues: whether the consequences
of breach of contract are remote or not; and whether the repercussions of breach of contract
are remote or not.

 How much, if any, compensation should be paid for the same?

 For the questions above, which law should be the governing law?

Contract Interpretation When two parties engage into a legally binding contract, there may be
a disagreement over how the law of the area should be applied to interpret the contract.
Parties are able to choose the law that will govern the interpretation of their contract in such
cases. Because the interpretation of a contract can better explain the parties' intentions, it is
considered just and reasonable to allow the parties the option of selecting the governing law
for purposes of interpretation. However, if it is not clearly stated in the contract which law
will govern the contract's interpretation, it is considered that the proper law will be the
governing law 350 for contract interpretation.

When a suit is filed in London on a contract that is a Chilean contract to be interpreted by

Chilean law, the Chilean law in relation to matters that may be taken into account in
interpreting the contract applies just as much as the law of London would apply if it were to
be determined in Chile, according to the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the parties have
clearly stated their preference for a certain law, they will be governed by that law. It is a rule
of presumption which could be rebutted, in case the true interpretation of the contract so
warrants, like: if the parties have used certain technical expressions whose meaning is
unintelligible under proper law though intelligible by the law of another country, then it is
reasonable to infer that when the parties used those expressions.

Illegality

When a contract is legitimate under the law of one country but invalid or illegal under the law
of another, as in the instance of Lex Loci contractus or Lex Loci solutionis, the question
arises as to how far the illegality of one area impacts the validity of the contract in another.

130
One point to keep in mind here is that the contract's validity is unaffected by illegality at the
contract's location unless it also happens to be the location of proper contract law. The
situation was explained in a well-known case, 48. The ship owners were excused from
liability for the master's or crew's negligence under the terms of the agreement between the
parties.

Such a clause was legal in England (the location of proper law), but it was unenforceable in
Massachusetts (lex loci contractus) because it was against public policy. The livestock were
lost due to the shipowners' incompetence. It was decided that because English law, which
was proper law, permitted such an exclusion provision, it was valid. The agreement would
not be enforced if it was found to be illegal under the lex loci solutionis. On this point, there
is a lot of authority49. The facts of this case must be explained briefly here in order to
provide clarity on the matter.

The following are the facts: In July 1918, an English company rented a Spanish ship
belonging to a Spanish company to transport jute goods from Calcutta to Barcelona. The
agreed-upon freight rate was £50 per tonne. When the ship sailed from Calcutta, half of the
freight was to be paid to the owners in London, and the other half was to be paid when the
ship arrived in Barcelona. The charter party was created in London and was written in
English. As a result, English law was the applicable law in this case. The maximum freight
rate on jute to be imported into Spain was set at 875 pesetas per tonne when the ship arrived
in September 1918, and any breach of the restriction was subject to a penalty. The freight set
by Spanish law was considerably less than £50 per tonne, and the cargo receivers in
Barcelona refused to pay any more than the amount allowed by Spanish law.

The Spanish shipowners filed a claim against the charterers in England to recover the
remainder of the freight. “When one of the contract's requirements is that an act be performed
in a foreign country, an implied term of the contract's continuing validity is that the act to be
performed in the foreign country shall not be illegal under the law of that country, unless or
until special circumstances prevail there,” said Acrutton L.J. in this case. A government
should neither help or sanction the violation of the laws of other independent countries,
according to him.” However, in another case, a distinction is made between acts that are
illegal at the time of performance and acts that are only invalid but not criminal. If specific
responsibilities have already arisen as a result of the correct law, they cannot be altered by a

131
change in the law in the site of performance, as long as the performance is not rendered
illegal.

Contractual Performance

There are some instances where the lex loci solution and the correct law diverge in terms of
contract execution. In such circumstances, the question of which law should control the
subject of performance emerges. As a result, it is regarded reasonable in such cases for the
law of the place of performance to regulate the question of contract performance. However, if
this rule is followed, it may cause difficulty in circumstances where the proper law and the
law of the site of performance are not the same. When the promisor's contractual liability is
lowered as a result of the lex loci solution, it affects the scope of the obligation that has
already arisen.

The proper law, it could be argued, establishes the contract's substance, including the
question of "what manner of performance will discharge the promise from his contractual
obligation?" However, it is now a well-established legal principle that the proper law governs
the fulfilment of obligations, and that such obligations cannot be altered by the lex loci
solution. The situation has been explained in a well-known case. In Victoria, interest rates
were cut as a result of legislation. The obligation to pay the agreed rate of interest could not
be changed by legislation at the location of execution of the contract, according to the proper
law of contract.

It was also emphasised that under Victorian law, paying a lower rate of interest was not
considered criminal. If it happened, things would have been different since the contract could
not be performed, which is illegal, even though the deal is valid under the contract's
appropriate law. Another example of a scenario where the rule that essential responsibilities
cannot be changed by applying the lex loci solution can be found.

If a French law exemption clause exists, but the contract is governed by English law and the
goods are to be delivered in Algiers, the promisor cannot be excused from non-performance

132
of the contract based on the French law exemption provision. In this case, Bowen, L.J.
summarised the position as follows: “In the matter of contract performance, the rule that the
proper law controls the performance of the contract, rather than the place of performance, has
been well recognised.” This guideline is thought to be fair and reasonable.

Damages Determination

The traditional view is that, even though the contract is regulated by a foreign law, questions
about the nature of the remedy to be awarded for a breach of contract are procedural matters
that are established by English law, as the lex-fori.

61 In this method, the court only considers English law principles while considering whether
or not to give particular performance or an injunction. Similarly, it was once assumed that
calculating damages was merely a matter of procedures governed solely by the lex-fori, rather
than a substantive issue for the applicable law. 62 In essence, it is asserted that procedure and
evidence are not covered by the legislation. Furthermore, this provision could be used to
argue that the conventional distinction between questions of liability (substance) and
problems of remedies and damages (process) is unaffected by the rule. If a certain sort of loss
is recoverable under the applicable legislation, English law, as the law of the forum, will
establish how damages for that loss are to be assessed.

However, the applicable law governs “the consequences of a total or partial breach of
obligation, including the assessment of damages in so far as it is governed by rules of law”
“within the limits of the powers conferred on the court by its procedural law,” but the
significance of this provision is unclear.

The court should only establish a classification of procedural matters that are connected to the
manner and conduct of proceedings, as suggested by developments in other areas of private
international law. Because whether or not a remedy of particular performance or an
injunction is available has nothing to do with the mode of trial. As a result, it would be more
accurate to say that the applicable law should define the sort of remedy to which the claimant
is entitled, subject to the constraints imposed by the forum's procedural law.

INDIAN LAW AND CONFLICT OF LAWS

133
Often, international trade and business involves traders from several nations, each of whose
legal systems differs in a variety of ways, resulting in intricate and even contradicting
aspects. Each country's law courts have jurisdiction solely inside the country's territorial
boundaries. The rules of private international law resolve issues of conflict of laws that occur
as a result of discrepancies in the law of a person's country of nationality and the law of the
country in which he may reside or obtain nationality. These concerns emerge most commonly
in personal matters such as marriage and divorce, child custody, child abduction, adoption,
and succession. The majority of these guidelines are based on judicial judgements. The
situation is more complicated in India because the applicable law is personal law relating to
these matters, which is determined by the religion of the individuals concerned. However,
most countries in which Indian nationals have a significant presence do not recognise
personal laws based on religion and have a unified civil code that applies to all persons
residing there.

India is now a member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (Hague
Conference on Private International Law). Every commercial activity in international trade
and commerce is often preceded by a contract defining the parties' duties in order to avoid
legal issues. However, in the fast-paced world of trade and industry, disagreements between
partners are unavoidable. Even if a contract is precisely structured, a party to the contract
may have a different understanding of his or her rights and obligations. Certain regulations
relating to conflict of laws are particularly addressed in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Sections 19, 20 of the code include the rules governing jurisdiction in inter-party actions.
Section 19 is limited to suits for damages to persons or moveable property. “Suits for
compensation for wrongs to person or movable property: Where a suit is for compensation
for wrongs to person or movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of
one court's jurisdiction and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works
for gain, within the local limits of another court's jurisdiction, 76 This section, however, is
limited to torts committed in India and defendants who live in India. Suits in connection with
foreign torts are not included in its scope. Section 20, which overlaps this section, deals with
such situations. Inter-party suits are the subject of this section.

There is a traditional distinction between public and private international law, which is
primarily based on whether the parties to a legal dispute are governments or individuals.

134
Public international law is defined as “the corpus of rules binding governments in their
relations with one another, as well as the processes available for enforcing these rules” in this
stratum, whereas private international law is defined as “the law applied by domestic courts
whenever a foreign element is relevant to the resolution of a legal controversy.”

Many experts in this new branch of law object to the term "private international law,"
implying that the law applied by domestic courts—even if it leads to the application of
foreign law—is a field of domestic law. This viewpoint is particularly prevalent in the United
States, which explains the use of the term "conflict of laws" to describe the subject, though it
also reflects an overabundance of emphasis among American scholars on the conflict of laws
as it has evolved from interstate (intranational) transactions. In Europe, even in federal states,
the subject is dominated by its international element, i.e., the study of the procedures and
processes by which courts in one country give effect to the law of another country or express
respect for a foreign court's decision. The fundamental characteristics of the conflict of laws,
its methodology, and its controlling philosophies have all been substantially questioned in
recent years. On the choice of legal rules, there is no intellectual or judicial agreement.

The traditional ideas of seeking uniformity of result and establishing equality between
domestic and foreign laws have been criticised, claiming that they are not pragmatic or
appropriate, because domestic courts do and should be inclined to domestic law in situations
where it is one of the applicable legal systems. To sum up, the strength of this current attempt
to supranationalize the conflict of laws appears to be critical to the stability and fairness of
international legal enterprises. Because human activity is becoming more interdependent,
there is a greater demand for predictable results in legal conflicts. 87 B.A. Wortley, “The
interaction of Public and Private International Law today,”

The Hague, Academy of International Law, (1954), at.pp.239-342. 364 forum. Given the
diversity of today's worldwide society, it is unrealistic to expect this to be accomplished by
combining national policies into a single substantive law. If the ancient drive for order among
diversity is pursued through a standard approach to the allocation of legal competence among
the national entities that make up the global system, there is more reason for optimism. The
use of choice of law rules by domestic courts is one illuminating setting in which this
allocation might be examined and realised.

135
 CHAPTER-7

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The contract's main aim is to formalise an agreement between two or more parties on a
certain issue. Contracts often encompass a wide range of topics, including employment terms,
independent contractor relationships, real estate sales, dispute resolution, and ownership of
intellectual property developed as part of a work for hire, among others. The contemporary
evolution of contract law is largely founded on the Latin philosophy of "all pacts should be
kept" (pacta sunt servanda), which began when trade became popular. The Indian legal
system acknowledged the concept of breach of contract at the time this statute was enacted.
As a result, the Indian legal system recognised the need to develop remedies to correct any
contract misunderstandings. Remedies successfully ensure fairness within contractual
partnerships, ensuring that neither party can take commercial connections for granted at any
time.

The law of damages for breach of contract started a few centuries ago and has progressed
through difficult times and confusions to the point where it stands today with reasonable good
clarity. However, the law of damages continues to evolve, and the overall trend is for the
better, all the time, every day, with each new challenge. Certainly, much more change has
occurred between the positions that prevailed a few centuries ago and those that prevail
today, and much more change can still be expected today and tomorrow. All that is required
for the evolution of the law of damages for breach of contract is a reference to shifts in
emphasis and major changes in the issue over time. The law of contract is the field of law that
governs the situations in which a promise is legally obligatory on the person who makes it.
Essentially, it is concerned with self-imposed duties that bind the parties involved.

136
A contract's obligation to perform also involves a responsibility to be accountable for the
contract's breach. Until the contract is properly concluded, there are usually no legal duties.
Any party who breaches a contract is liable to pay damages to the other party as a result of
the violation. To begin, a distinction has been made in law between a right and a remedy. A
remedy requires the existence of a right (in the sense of a cause of action). As a result, it has
been claimed that "every right has a remedy." Again, solutions are viewed as "ends," while
procedures are viewed as "means" to achieve those aims. To put it another way, the right is
seen as the fundamental requirement, while the solution is seen as secondary. Failure to
perform the primary responsibility of a contract is regarded a breach of contract, and the
secondary obligation that develops is the liability to pay damages. Actually, contract breach
remedies are designed to encourage people to join into contracts freely and without
hesitation. 3 Damages are now associated with compensation in the modern period. Some
jurists, on the other hand, believe that damages should be viewed as a monetary
compensation granted in reaction to a wrong. Damages would then include restitution and
punitive awards in addition to compensatory rewards. The realisation of such a concept of
damages, according to this argument, would result in inconsistency, which would block the
law's progressive evolution. Rather, that growth necessitates the determination of each
remedy's aims and the creation of a rule of remedies based on those objectives. Based on an
examination of the goals of compensatory and exemplary damages, it appears that
"satisfaction" should be recognised as a separate goal of the law of remedies.

As a result, a practical discussion of the measurement and evaluation of damages and

equitable compensation in a variety of commercial scenarios has been conducted in this study
effort, using both leading and current cases. The following are the main points covered in the
discussion: Different types of remedies available for contract breaches; specifically Damages;
contract damages; the contrast between debt and damages; the distinction between damages
and restitution and other related remedies;

The laws governing causation, remoteness, and mitigation of losses in contracts; liquidated
damages and penalties; monetary damages; statutory interest; and the proof of damages in
various settings.

In fact, because it is a violation of the promisee's legal right to have the promise fulfilled,
breach of contract is regarded a civil wrong. The most important takeaway from this analysis
is that there is no one-size-fits-all reaction to a contract breach. This fact needs to be

137
emphasised since many people believe that compensatory damages are the only way to
respond to a contract breach. This assumption is false because the content of the remedial or
secondary obligation is triggered by a wrong, therefore it is up to the courts to decide as a
matter of policy, which can only be restrained by extrinsic reasons. This thesis has showed
that an award of compensatory damages may be regarded insufficient as a remedy for breach
of contract in a variety of instances. This occurs frequently because the award fails to place
the promisee "in a condition as advantageous to him as if the contract had been specifically
performed." Several inferences can be drawn in this regard, including:

To begin with, a contract's obligation is not disjunctive, i.e., it obligates the parties to either
comply or pay damages. Damages would never be an adequate remedy for violation if the
obligation was disjunctive.

Second, a contract creates an obligation to fulfil, and a breach of this obligation is deemed a
wrong that gives birth to remedial rights. The goal of these remedial powers is to defend the
promisee's interest in performance, which is vital for both the promisee and the contractual
institution.

Third, a judgement of compensatory damages will typically enough for this purpose (thus, it
is considered the primary remedy for contract breach) since it allows the promisee to obtain
substitute performance from a different source. However, substitute performance may be
unavailable or insufficient to protect the promisee's bargained-for interest in performance in
some circumstances. In certain situations, the courts will turn to particular remedy or gain-
based damages as alternatives to monetary damages. The goal of these remedies, as well as
all contract remedies, is to safeguard the promisee's bargained-for interest in performance.
This goal has influenced contract remedies in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

From this perspective, the first question that comes to mind when considering damages is
why courts award damages or any form of damages at all. Damages for breach of contract are
the only potential outcome of a successful private law action, and they are frequently used to
replace, augment, or replace other types of awards. In fact, in common law, the essential
principle governing the award of damages is that they must be compensatory in character.
Specifically, the damages available under common law regimes will be appropriate in the
current situation. Plaintiffs have a right to an award of damages equal to the financial losses
that may properly be attributed to the unlawful act in every case where a civil wrong has been

138
proven. As a result, wrongdoers must compensate victims for actual and anticipated out-of-
pocket expenses, lost earnings, and other damages. Such sums could be viewed as an attempt,
in terms of the monetary repercussions of the breach, to make the world of the innocent
person as if the wrong had never occurred. However, because these sums are legally
recognised as liabilities imposed by the court, they can be understood as a clear and
straightforward manner to support the plaintiff's rights. The law makes it apparent that the
serious consequences of the defendant's wrongdoing should not have happened by holding
him accountable for them. The law holds the guilty party responsible for his action by
shifting the burden of the infringement of rights from the victim to the wrongdoer.

Courts frequently award what are sometimes referred to as "non 369 compensatory" damages
or damages for "nonpecuniary" injuries in addition to pecuniary damages. The main premise
regulating the calculation of compensatory damages in contract is that the plaintiff should be
awarded the monetary sum that, in the best possible sense, constitutes fair and reasonable
recompense for the loss or injury suffered as a result of the defendant's wrongful action.

As a result, whenever a judgement of damages is for compensating purposes, it is assumed

that there are no hard and fast rules. It can be impossible to determine the actual amount of
loss incurred at times, and an estimate or even an impression must suffice. Indeed, inflexible
regulations must give way to alternatives that provide an injured plaintiff with the amount of
damages that most equitably compensates for his or her loss. The recovery of consequential
damages is subject to a significant limitation, as the established rule of Hadley v. Baxendale
limits consequential damages to those injuries that were within both parties' contemplation at
the time of contract formation. “Where two parties have made a contract which one of them
has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of
contract should be such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of
both parties, at the time they made the contract,” the court said in this case (as has been
discussed in previous chapters of this research work). Prior to this case, only “natural”
damages, or those resulting from the normal course of events, could be collected. However,
the jury was given a lot of leeway in deciding the amount of the real injury, and this leeway
frequently resulted in exorbitant verdicts.

The Hadley guidelines developed from the complexity created by the lack of a clear concept
directing jurors on breach damages. As a result, “natural” damages were limited to “usual” or
“foreseeable” damages, and the court created a new category of damages: when both parties

139
are aware of unique circumstances, restitution may include both those damages that the
circumstances make likely and those that would arise normally.

This rule can be criticised on the following grounds:- In many transactions, one of the parties
will have little or no opportunity to change the terms of the contract, and if the law allows
recovery of unforeseen damages regardless of whether the injured party has informed the
other parties to the contract, the law would discourage such disclosure because if a party has
disclosed unforeseeable damages, the law would be discouraging such disclosure because if a
party has disclosed unforeseeable damages, the law would be discouraging such disclosure.

Furthermore, there appears to be no sense in forcing a party to perform if that person

recognises that the contract is no longer profitable, as he would lose more money than the
wounded party would receive.

If one looks back in history, it can be observed that the courts were sceptical of awarding
consequential damages for lost earnings at the time, and only authorised recovery in a few
situations.

In fact, assessing damages for breach of contract for anything other than the most
straightforward of losses coming from a breach is one of the most perplexing components of
awarding judgments or passing judgement. Damages and compensation are linked under
current contract law. Damages, on the other hand, have not always been linked to monetary
recompense. Judges and juries did not have the same functions as they have now, problems of
fact and law were not clearly divided, and judges were eager to delegate as many difficult
issues to jurors as possible throughout the early stages of common law development.
Damages were essentially "an arcanum of the jury box into which judges shied away from
peering." This reflects how damages have been perceived for many centuries. Sir Edward
Coke defined damages in the 17th century as "the reparation that is awarded by the jury to the
plaintiff or defendant, for the injury that the defendant has done to him." The jury was
abolished in the late 18th century, and Joseph Sayer defined "damages" as "a monetary
compensation for a harm" in his book (which is considered the first book published especially
on damages): "Damages are a money recompense for an injury." The 19th century's two
classic English authorities, Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. and Robinson v. Harman, both
upheld this logical understanding of damages as compensation. In the first instance, Lord
Blackburn stated in the context of a tort: "A court should give "that sum of money that will

140
place the individual who has been damaged, or who has suffered, in the same situation as he
would have been if he had not experienced the wrong for which he is now receiving
compensation."

Parke B noticed and adopted a similar remedy in breach of contract instances in the second
case, with the clarification that in such cases, the injured party is returned to the position that
would have been attained had the contract been completed. In fact, the ethical evolution of
damages law just began in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This time relates to the
formation of contemporary torts and contract law, in which most civil liability was (and still
is) based on principles found outside of statute. The most common instrumental explanations
for the aim of that liability are deterrence and recompense. The more problematic
interpretation is deterrence, because all monetary prizes are deterrents in a very weak sense,
acting as a sanction on behaviour. This is independent of whether they are compensatory,
restitutionary, or punitive in nature. However, the impact of any given award on the
defendant's or others' future behaviour is arguable normatively, and there is little practical
proof that damages have a deterrent effect, even when the court clearly intends it by granting
exemplary damages.

As a result, compensation has largely replaced punitive damages as the primary goal of civil
liability.

Compensation was thought to be the most important remedy that could be applied equally to
contract law, which aims to "satisfy the expectations of the party entitled to performance."

30 Thus, compensation achieves that goal when particular performance is impossible, as it

frequently is in common law systems, where compensation is a remedy of equitable origin
that is accessible, at least in theory, only when damages are insufficient, and that is also at the
court's discretion.

Unsurprisingly, the restatement and refinement of the compensation principle characterised

the evolution of damages law in the twentieth century. The common threads that run up to
Hadley and on are the double considerations of foreseeability and communication, which can
be explained as follows: Where consequential damages are foreseeable, they are more likely
to be granted; where the injured party communicates his special needs to the opposite party at
the time of contracting, consequential damages are more likely to be granted.

141
It comes down to evidence in the end. When the asserted consequential loss is remote or
future, the courts plainly demand a high degree of proof, both in terms of foreseeability and
quantity. Assumptions should be used sparingly, if at all, in the evaluation, and previous
assumptions about what a party "ought to know" should be set aside while evaluating the
claimant's proofs. However, in recent years, the Hadley's rule has been relaxed by framing it
in terms of foreseeability. In recent years, the trend in the courts has been to allow for the
recovery of lost earnings in a larger range of instances.

Thus, harm is regarded foreseeable in modern terms either because it is a natural consequence
of the violation or because unique circumstances put the harm into the parties' consideration.

JUSTIFICATION OF HYPOTHESIS

The idea is supported by an examination of current and emerging legal tendencies in

England, India, and other countries concerning damages for breach of contract. With the help
of laws, the influence of court intervention is both qualitative and quantitative. In light of the
research, the researcher is free to build an argument based on the principles of breach of
contract that is more in line with ease of exposition and application, while also being
consistent with the economic realities of the modern period of commercialisation. The nature
of the opinion, which is said to arise on breach of contract, is that whenever there is a breach
that will result in a significant deficiency of the contract's expected profit to the innocent
party, the innocent party has the option of determining his right to sue for damages among the
other remedies available. However, by establishing this right, the innocent party will be
forced to deal with a number of distressing situations, including: the current legal system's
lack of cooperation in certain situations; the complexity of damage assessment; the intricacy
of mitigation; and the difficulty of mitigation even if there is a duty to mitigate.

In some cases, the current judicial system lacks cooperation. If they are to be used properly,
the legal norms listed under any law must be well-equipped with clear definitions and
explanations. Any form of statutory requirement with a lack of clarity is also accountable for
fostering a sense of helplessness. In some cases, the party who is breaching the contract
appears to be able to continue performing, but because the law allows for remedies for breach
of contract, the innocent party feels helpless in preserving the contract's rigorous jacket
approach. Continued performance is considered to be most advantageous in certain cases, but
the perspective is that the current legal system's lack of cooperation has also massed up the
connection and ultimately resulted in breach of contract.

142
Damages assessment is difficult.

Although damages for breach of contract to negotiate for a fair and reasonable sum would be
excessive, this has remained one of the most challenging issues in English law, which can
only be equated with the "floodgates of litigation" and the "unruly horse of public policy."

43 It can be argued that the difficulty in determining damages offers a party a sufficiently
justified interest to continue performing a potentially harmful act. It places a passport to
precise performance of the contract in the hands of the innocent party. Several questions arise
in this context, such as: who is to define the sufficiently difficult standard?

What about a sincere but erroneous notion that determining damages would be difficult?

Why should a layperson be tasked with deciding a subject that has stumped the court?

Is it difficult to determine the extent of the damage? Or is it just too difficult? It could be
argued that this component of the legitimate interest approach just adds to the confusion.

In fact, the court's primary goal should be to prevent wasteful waste. Allowing prolonged
performance on the grounds that the innocent party finds the resulting damage too difficult to
quantify in monetary terms strikes right at that point.

Even if there is an obligation to mitigate, mitigating is difficult.

Mitigation is important if a loss is anticipated. It implies that the potential sufferer should do
everything in his or her power to mitigate the situation. In the end, just as a breach of contract
can cause anxiety, i.e. an impending loss, so can unretracted repudiation. Until it is retracted,
the innocent party might fairly assume that his expectations will be disappointed and that he
will incur a loss. At this point, there would be an obligation to mitigate in both senses of the
word. As a result, it is easy to see that mitigation entails taking reasonable steps to minimise
the loss. The mitigator must also refrain from adopting actions that will fairly exacerbate the
loss, which is a point that is often overlooked. The obligation to mitigate is not merely an
add-on to a violation of contract; it must also be considered when determining loss allocation.
There are some rules that govern the allocation of loss, one of which is that the loss will be
borne by the person who created it, i.e. the party at fault, who is essentially liable for the
breach. However, there are certain issues with this principle. These are as follows:- Why isn't

143
a loss that could have been avoided recoverable? and Why should reasonable steps be taken
to minimise loss? The analysis in Chapter 3 reveals that if a loss occurs as a result of these
actions not being done, it will be held that the loss was lawfully caused by the omission of
someone who might have easily avoided it.

In fact, Section 73 makes the party claiming damages responsible for mitigating its loss.
Harish Chandra Dwarka Das v. Murlidhar ChiranjiLal,52 The Supreme Court of India has
established two rules for calculating damages in cases of breach of contract for the sale of
goods. The first is that the damaged party must be placed in a position similar to that which
would exist if the contract had been fulfilled. Whoever has proven a breach of contract by
failing to give what he has contracted for is to be placed in as good a position as if the
contract had been fulfilled, as far as money allows. This is limited by a second principle,
which states that the injured party is precluded from recovering any damages resulting from
his negligence. He bears the responsibility for mitigating losses resulting from the breach of
contract. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that while the principle of mitigation does not
grant a party in breach of contract any rights, it is a factor to consider when calculating
damages. 53 It is important to note that Section 73 of the Act expressly states that no
compensation would be paid for any remote or indirect loss or damage incurred as a result of
the contract's breach. However, it also provides that the non-defaulting party is entitled to
compensation from the defaulting party for any loss or damage incurred as a result of the
violation of the contract, which the parties understood would be likely to occur when the
contract was established. The concepts brought down in the aforementioned case of Hadley v.
Baxendale have also been incorporated by the draughtsmen within the text of Section 73 of
the Act, and the same has also been used in numerous Indian cases, as shown in the preceding
discussion. It can be concluded that the general principle governing the recovery of
consequential damages by non-defaulting parties is that the non-defaulting party is only
entitled to recover that portion of the damages or losses resulting from the defaulting party's
breach that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract execution as liable to result
from the breach. Furthermore, the damage or loss that is "reasonably foreseeable" will be
determined, among other things, by the parties' information. A reasonable person should be
able to comprehend and anticipate the harm that may be caused to the non-defaulting party as
a result of the defaulting party's violation in the "ordinary course." However, in the event of
the existence of "special circumstances" that are outside the scope of the "ordinary course," it
is critical that the defaulting party be aware of the said "special circumstances" that would

144
result in consequential losses for the non-defaulting party at the time of contract execution in
order to be able to claim consequential damages.

RECENT JUDICIAL TREND IN INDIA

A few key instances must be addressed in order to understand the current trend in Indian
courts. The following are some of them: - Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Ltd.

The court was asked in this case whether it may intervene in a situation where an arbitrator
had issued an award while interpreting a contractual clause. The court decided that it had the
authority to interfere with such an award, and the award in this case was overturned. The
court went on to say that an award granting liquidated damages to a party because it failed to
prove any loss was caused to it is similarly unjustified because proof of actual loss is not
required and the structure of the contract can show that loss was caused. Furthermore, the
burden of proof is on the offending party to demonstrate that no actual loss occurred. Only if
he is successful in establishing this would the aggrieved party be entitled to any liquidated
damages under a contractual condition. In terms of the amount of damages that can be
awarded, the court has made it plain that the amount of liquidated damages mentioned in the
contract is merely an upper limit of damages, and that a lower reasonable sum can be granted
instead of the stipulated amount of liquidated damages.

Reliance Communication Ltd. v. B.S.N.L.

The Apex Court found that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was not violated in
this instance since the contract's provisions show that the sum mentioned in the contract
contemplated pre-estimation of fair damages rather than a penalty. The Court also held that,
in light of the importance of providing liquidated damages in commercial contracts,
particularly where commercial activities are subject to regulatory regimes, courts should not
categorise liquidated damages as penalties in general because they reduce uncertainty and, as
a result, help to reduce litigation. Thus, the terminology used to describe these damages,

145
whether penal or liquidated, is not determinative, however it is one of the criteria to examine
when evaluating the true nature of these damages, whether penal or liquidated.

Procall (P.) Ltd. v. Tower Vision India (P.) Ltd. CO.

The observations made by the judge in this case are worth considering. The following are
some of them: A "debt" is a sum of money that is due now or will be due in the future as a
result of a current obligation. A debt must have an established obligation to pay a sum of
money in order to exist. Money claimed by, or required to be paid to, a person as
compensation for loss or injury is referred to as "damages." It is only a claim until it is
adjudicated by a court, and then it becomes a "debt" when a court awards it. There is no
"existing obligation" to pay any sum in the case of a claim for damages (liquidated or
unliquidated). No financial liability in connection with a claim for damages exists until a
court rules on the claim for damages, finds that the defendant has breached the contract and is
liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss, and then determines the amount of that liability.
An claimed default or breach merely gives birth to a right to sue for damages, not a claim of
"debt." A claim for damages becomes a "debt due" when a competent court finds, after an
investigation, that the person against whom the claim for damages has committed breach and
incurred a financial duty towards the party complaining of breach, and determines the
quantum of loss and awards damages. Damages are paid at the court's discretion, not on the
basis of quantification by the individual alleging breach.

M/s. York Exports Ltd. v. Gian Chand

Despite the fact that this case is about Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, which is about
the doctrine of frustration. The court had to decide whether the contract was fulfilled or not.
Another issue before the court was whether the payment of interest awarded by the High
Court on the decreetal amount from the date of the civil suit's institution until the defendants'
payment to the plaintiffs was justified. This court has examined the said aspect of the matter
by referring to Sections 73, 74, and 75 of Chapter VI of the Indian Contract Act, as well as

146
the decisions of various High Courts, and has concluded that the defendants have not proven
that they suffered losses as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to perform the contract. And, after
a thorough examination of the pleadings and evidence on file, the court correctly dismissed
the arguments and decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 39, 20,000/-, plus 6% interest per
annum from the date of institution of the suit until the date of payment of money, after
concluding that the parties' contract was not frustrated. Finally, the Apex Court found that,
given the facts and circumstances of the case, the assailed judgment's award of interest on the
main amount and decreetal sum is perfectly reasonable.

Delhi Development Authority v. M/s Construction & Design Services

When and to what extent can stipulated liquidated damages for breach of contract be held to
be in the nature of penalty in the absence of evidence of actual loss, and to what extent can
the stipulation be taken to be the measure of compensation for the loss suffered even in the
absence of specific evidence, was the question before the court in this case. Another concern
was whether the party committing the breach bears the burden of establishing that the sum
indicated as damages for breach of contract was a punishment. In this case, the Apex Court
found that the High Court failed to consider Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, P.
DSouza v. Shondrilo Naidu,59 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.,60
and the Fateh Chands case61, where it is specifically held that the court's jurisdiction to
award compensation in case of contract breach is unqualified except in the case of a contract
breach. When a contract is violated, the party who suffers as a result of the breach is entitled
to compensation for any damage he suffers that the parties understood would likely come
from the breach when they made the contract. This section should be read in conjunction with
Section 74, which deals with contractual penalties and, among other things (relevant to the
present case), provides that when a contract is breached, if a sum is named in the contract as
the amount to be paid in case of such breach, the party complaining of breach is entitled to
receive from the other party, whether or not actual loss is proven to have been caused.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION

 One cannot dispute that those involved in commercial transactions have their own
working style and limitations when dealing with contractual issues such as breach of
contract and the compromise that must be made in a breach of contract situation. In
fact, calculating damages will never be an exact science; it will always be more or less

147
 a compromise or an adjustment. Furthermore, business executives continue to be
hesitant, or rather, fearful, of a lengthy judicial case and the potentially fatal
technicalities of the proceedings. The researcher discovered that in India, the concept
of nominal damages has not developed to the extent that it has in other countries such
as England, Australia, and Canada, based on 391 the analytical research on the
judicial trend prevailing in India and some other countries such as England, Australia,
and Canada on the subject of damages for breach of contract. Even when a legal
breach of contract is shown, if the party that is the victim of the breach has not
incurred any monetary damage as a result of it, the litigation will still be difficult. As
a result, the researcher argued that there is a pressing need to recognise nominal
damages in India, and that in such cases, Indian courts should take the party
responsible for the breach seriously after the contract is made and the breach is
proven, even if the nature of damages (which must be awarded) is nominal damages.
 The issue of "Exemplary damages" is one that frequently arises in Indian courts of
law. These damages are punitive in nature, and are not designed to reimburse the
plaintiff for any losses, but rather to punish the defendant. The fundamental problem
that Indian courts are encountering is that they are unable to determine if there is a
need to award exemplary damages once the litigation is over and the competent court
has rendered a decision on the specific question of damages stemming from a breach
of contract or not. After reviewing a significant number of judicial decisions, it may
be concluded that Indian courts are still so liberal that they are unwilling to award
compensation or damages under the heading of "exemplary damages" or "punitive
damages." This is why, time and time again, the Honble courts of India's liberal
attitude has been misunderstood and misunderstood by the party who is accountable
for contract breach. As a result, the researcher believes that there is a need to make the
regulations relating the award of "exemplary damages" strict and sufficient, and that
Indian courts should adopt a little harsher approach in this regard than courts in other
countries, such as England.
 “Aggravated damages,” which are (essentially compensatory in nature) granted to
compensate a victim of a wrong for mental distress or harm in circumstances where
such injury was caused or aggravated by the defendant's behaviour prior to the wrong,
or by the defendant's conduct subsequent to the wrong. The basic issue with the
concept of such aggravated damages is that it has not been fully developed in India in

148
 terms of contractual obligations. In India, the procedures for calculating damages
should be made clearer and more stringent.
 The court may award damages for mental anguish and suffering as a result of the
violation of contract. These damages are an exception to the normal rule that damages
are only given for financial losses incurred as a result of the violation of contract.
Vindictive damages are the monetary damages granted to the claimant in civil
litigation to punish the perpetrator and prevent the wrongdoer and others from
engaging in unlawful activity in the future. In general, in the following types of
circumstances, the aggrieved party's mental suffering and pain have been taken into
account when awarding exemplary or vindictive damages: unjustified dishonour of a
check; breach of marriage commitment.
 The issue here is that an examination of the judgements reveals that the concept of
vengeful or retributive damages does not appear in any of the judgments issued by
Indian courts. It is apparent that the Indian legal system still has problems assigning
damages in this area. As a result, it could be argued that the time has come for the
Honble Courts of India to be more stringent in awarding damages under this heading
as well, in order to ensure appropriate application and implementation of the law of
damages for breach of contract.
 The irony of Indian damages law is that, on the one hand, under Sec.73, special
circumstances must be in the minds of both parties at the time of contracting, whereas,
on the other hand, when awarding damages, it is assumed that the special
circumstances attached to the contract must be known only to the promisor at the time
of contracting, and Thus, even after suffering significant losses as a result of the other
party's violation, the plaintiff must only prove that he has experienced losses. This
appears to be one of the most agonising and hopeless scenarios for the litigant who
approaches the courts of law with folded hands and tremendous faith in the system. A
zigzag between two Honble Delhi High Court judgments 62 sparked a long-running
debate: whether, in the event of a breach of contract by the defendant-seller, the
plaintiff-buyer must prove his loss on the actual purchase of similar (substituted)
goods to justify his claim for damages in a court of law? To put it another way, can it
be claimed that there are no precise standards that regulate cases when the courts can
award damages notwithstanding the fact that there was no actual loss as a result of the
lack of purchase? Isn't it true that if this theory is accepted, it will nullify the law of

149
 damages by eliminating the notional assumption of loss based on the difference
between market and contract prices? As a result, all ambiguities in this regard must be
dispelled by the Indian parliament and the courts of law enacting precise guidelines.
 In terms of contract law, there is still an unsatisfactory system in place because there
is no system in place that imposes any form of penalty for breaching a contract.
Perhaps this is one of the most compelling reasons why the promise, which is made
voluntarily by the party at the time of contract formation, is treated so lightly by the
same party when the contract is breached.
 In the present period, given the intricacy of commercial transactions, the researcher
believes that the Indian legal system is unsatisfactory to the point where it lacks any
form of alternative conflict resolution mechanism. It is not always true that the parties
are willing to breach a contract; instead, the party who is committing breach may have
a strong desire to perform the contract, but due to a lack of proper and authentic legal
advice regarding the benefits of performing his part of obligation, and the
consequences of failing to do so, the party who is committing breach may not be
willing to do so. As a result, some form of alternative conflict resolution mechanism
is required.
 Because of the emphasis on clarity, liability-limiting mechanisms, and established
standards in classical contract law, a variety of artificial limits on anticipated damages
in general, and lost profits in particular, have been adopted. This trend is part of a
broader realisation that damages for violation of contract tend to be
undercompensatory, and that undercompensation is at least as inefficient as
overcompensation. As business conditions have changed, profits have come to be
recognised as central to business value, and economic analysis has shown that
expectation damages are both fair and efficient, the artificial limits placed on
expectation damages and lost profits by classical law of contract have gradually
eroded, and law of contract has moved toward the goal of full compensation. Hadley
v. Baxendale's principle may have played an important function in a period when
small businesses were extremely significant and judges frequently believed that
fairness issues could not be directly handled under contract law. The concept's
persistence may possibly be due to an inaccurate assumption that the Hadley v.
Baxendale64 principle just needs foreseeability, and therefore abandoning the
principle would imply dropping foreseeability as a limitation on damages under

150
 contract law. But now is the time to amend the law relating to damages for breach of
contract, and a regime of proximate cause, contractual allocations of loss, and fair
disclosure could be an alternative to the approach established in the above-mentioned
case. Although it would not be a major departure from current law, it would complete
a shift that modern business practise and contract law have already undergone.
 Because of the changing scenario of commercial transactions, an economic shift
from small firms to high-volume sellers has occurred, who have the capacity to deal
with liability using probabilistic techniques and to the everyday use of contractual
allocations of loss to limit their liability. Perhaps, as a result of the increasing
complexities in the modern day, and in the awareness and assessment of
probabilities, threats that were once thought to be too remote are now thought to be at
least likely.
 Furthermore, the standard of foreseeability required for calculating damages should
vary depending on the nature of the interest occupied and the wrong committed, with
the baseline standard of reasonable foreseeability being applied where lost profits or
missed opportunities are involved; and the relevant standard should be applied at the
time of the breach. If the proposed regime appears to be too radical for the Indian
legal system, they should at the very least follow emerging judicial trends not only in
India, but also in other countries, because commercial transactions are not only a
matter of interest in one country, but they are prevailing all over the world, and there
is nothing wrong with learning from others if one can.

151
BIBLOGRAPHY

Books:-

1. Allen, Devin E., “Asian Contract Law”, (1972), published by Cambridge University Press.

2. Anson, W.R., “Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in its relation to
contract”, ed. 21st (1959), Oxford at the Clarendon Press, London.

3. Anand, R.L. & Iyer, Commentary on the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act No. 47 of 1963),
ed.12th, (2011), Delhi Law House.

4. Atiyah P.S., “The Rise and fall of freedom of Contract”, (1985), Clarendon Press, London.

5. Atiyah, P.S., “Introduction to the Law of Contract”,(1995), and ed.6th, (2005) published by
Clarendon Press, Oxford.

6. Awasthi, S.K., “Digest on Indian Contract Act, 1872: with allied legislations”, ed.1st,
(1999), Dwivedi & Co., Allahabad.

LIST OF ARTICLES AND WRITE UP REFERED:-

1. “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law”, (1922),Book Review:32 Yale Law Journal
515 (1923), by Dean Roscoe Pound.

152
2. “Amount forfeited for breach of Contract to be included or excluded in a suit for
damages?” by R.Thillai Villalan.

3. “Damages for breach of Contract under international commercial law, requirement of

reasonableness of damages”, by Rodney D. Ryder.

4. „Damages for intangible loss for breaches of Contract”, by K.V.S. Sharma.

5. “Death of damages: A dichotomy”, by I .C. Saxena.

6. “Deposit Forfeiture: A comparative legal perspective” by I .C. Saxena.

7. “Exclusion of contractual liabilities and damages - A critical analysis”, by Arvind Singh

Dalal.

8. “Exemplary damages for breach of promise”, by Jagdish Kumar Malik.

9. “Liquidated damages - A new controversy”, by R.C. Mirza.

153