MONSOON SEMESTER’ 19 CASE LIST

Legal Intention
1. Balfour vs Balfour- husband promised to pay but didn’t pay- no legal consequence intended
2. Errington vs Wood- father mortgaged house-DIL-died before-FIL wife claimed house back-unilateal
contract performance= acceptance
3. Jones vs Padavatton – mother called daughter to study from us to uk- promised to give allowance
but later disagreed- contract was vague and not legally binding
4. Merritt vs Merritt – husband left wife and paid maintance out of which he has to give money for
house so that it can be hers but husband denied possession – there was consideration and legally
binding
5. Snelling vs John G Snelling- any brother resigning will forfeit his share but brother demanded the
share back- legal intention were their as seeing the facts
6. Parker vs Clark – parker agreed to live in house of Clarke but later asked to leave and pay –
language of letter shows seriousness and implied that def will live till uncle die as he was very old
7. Simpkins vs Pays – GM, GD, tenant gambled on GM name- they won- claimed from GM – was
given as it was legal intention
8. Coward vs Motor Insurance Bureau – pillion passenger was killed and demanded damages – there
was no legal contract between the driver and pillion
9. Rose & Frank Co. vs J.R.Crompton & Bros. – in the clause it was written in agreem that it not
subject to legal proceedings
10. Baird Textiles Holdings vs Marks & Spencers -not a legal contract and cont cant be implied and
estoppel not capable of creating own cause of action

Offer and Invitation

11. Carlil vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Factory – influenza case – the adv was offer as it specified each and
every condition and didn’t came with T&C clause – issue of wagering – no as only one party was to
gain or lose but wagering requires both the parties to either gain or lose.
12. Queen’s defendant v Demer’s – contracted for printing for 8 yrs but govt changed and canceled –
was a standing offer and govt had right not to give offer at times.- contract was to pay if printing was
offered
13. Morris Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store – adv first come first serve but plant was
refused – held was a general offer whose acceptance made it a contract
14. Ankit Sharma vs Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar – gave 10000 for adm but didn’t took –
want money back – clause clearly mentioned that refund only for admitted candidates
15. Madhya Pradesh State Road Tranportation vs Manoj Kumar – VRS scheme opened and
withdrawal allowed for one month but some claimed withdrew after that – VRS was invi to offer and
employees made offer and offer can only be withdrew before acceptance.
16. Ghaziabad Development Authority v UOI – made flats- took money – but didn’t gave plots – no
damages for mental agony

Acceptance & Communication

17. Felthouse vs Bindley – uncle wrote to nephew not to sell horse but his asst. sold it by mistake – sued
for tort of conversion but for that the def need to own the property – no right to impose an obligation
to reject the offer and comm. To be clearly communicated.
18. Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd. vs Ex-Cell-O Corporation [England] Ltd – plant offered to sell
some machine and which contained come terms and cond which shall prevail over buyers terms and
condt. – contained price clause which was signed but later discovered that it was of higher price –
battle of forms - counter offer kills the original offer
19. Trimex International vs Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. – trimex ordered for 5 shipment(everything was
set just the formal contract had to be made). 1 st shipment was sent and they said to hold back other 4
until trimex check the 1st shipm. But they sent the other 4 and in the meanwhile, trimex cancelled the
order – if everything is decided then it is a mere formality to put it in writing and make formal
20. Bhagwandas Kedia vs Girdharilal – offer from ahemdabad and accepted at khamgaon through
telephone - breach- sued at ahemdabad – where was cont formed- telephone conv comes under
instant rule of comm. i.e. where the comm was heard i.e. ahemdabad
21. Hollwell Securities vs Thomas Hughes – offer to sell house – acceptance through letter - letter lost
in transition – the offer has to be communicated and reach the party therefore no contract.
22. Jawahar Lal Burman vs Union of India - res made tender offer and def won it – dipute – arb clause
– app objected to the juris. Of arb – accpt of condtn must be absolut and unqualify and condtn
precedent walid consideration.
23. Union of India & Ors. vs M/s Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram -
24. D. Wren International v. Engineers India Ltd. -
25. M/s Rickmers Verwaltung vs Indian Oil CoHigh Trerp. Ltd.- In the case of Rickmers Verwaltung
GMBH v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.12 the Court took the view that 'it is the duty of the court to construe
correspondence with a view to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any meeting of minds
between the parties, which could create a binding contract between them
26. M.R. Engineers vs Som Dutt Builders – a cont was made and then a sun cont – issue whether the
arb clause came under sub cont - where a contract between two parties does not contain a provision
for arbitration, an arbitration clause contained in an independent document will be incorporated into
the contract between the parties by reference to an independent document in the contract if the
reference is such to make the arbitration clause in the independent document a part of the contract.
27. P.R Transport Agency v. Union of India – bid accepted by email but later got rejected – main issue
of jurisdiction – ouster clauses can only ouster jurisd. Of civil court not high court
28. Entores v Miles – offer was sent from London to Amsterdam – breach – issue was were to sue -
Telex is analogous to instantaneous form of communication. It was held that the contract was formed
in London. The instantaneous nature of telex meant that regular rules of acceptance by post did not
apply. The general principle that acceptance takes place when communicated applies to all
instantaneous forms of communication.
29. Ramji Dayawala and Sons v. Invest Import -

Implied Terms
30. B.P. Refinery vs The President Councillors & Ratepayers of the Shire of Hastings- refinery set
up but then transferred its asset and implied that old rate would apply but not applied- was within
rights of bp and 5 condtn for implied term - 1. it must be reasonable and equitable;
2. it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the
contract is effective without it;
3. it must be so obvious that "it goes without saying";
4. it must be capable of clear expression;
5. it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
31. The Moorcock Case – boat parked on low bed – damage - there was duty on part of co to check the
depth – negligent in checking
32. NHAI v. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway -  which holds that the right to exercise 'Right of First
Refusal (ROFR)' by any Contractor would come into play only if he participates in the tender process
pursuant to notice inviting tenders from other interested parties.

Consideration
33. McArdle vs McArdle – wife paid for the repairs of the house and was agreed that her children would
her back when they get the estate, but chidren refused to pay when the got the estate – issue of
whether it was a gift or assignment – an equitable assignment without consideration is gift – as she
already built the house , the consideration was past and hence nudum pactum.
34. Chapell vs Nestle (Court of Appeal and House of Lords) – chappel made some recordings and had
copyright over it, nestle sold these record to anyone who bring 3 wrappers of their choclates – chappel
consider it as copyright violation and issue was whether it a retail sale or not – for retail sale there
should be consideration and the wrapper can be considered as a consideration and intention to sell it.
35. Lampleigh vs Braithwaite – was given death sentence – request to grant plea from king later
promised to pay money but didn’t – promise to pay in future for a event done in past is considered
good consideration.
36. L.E. Godfrey vs Parbati Paluni – mistress offered 10 rs but not given – court considered only the
part of contract considering moniey and not the immoral to puvlic policy part. And gave him mney for
the service she rendered as house worker
37. Esso Petroleum Ltd. vs Income Tax Commissioners – were giving coin for petrol buyed but itc
challenged it that it was not gift but a sale – it was a general sale as esso had legal obligation and there
was no consideration for the transfer of the coins as the coins were transferred under the separate
contract for sale of the petrol. Therefore, gift
38. Samuel Pillai vs Ananthanatha Pillai – SP gave AP father money who later died, SP sued for
recovery- AP was bound by law to give back property – consideration was the interest he took.
39. District Board of Ramnad v. D k Mahomed Ibrahim Sahib -
40. Combe vs Combe (King’s Bench Division and Court of Appeal) – hub promise wife to pay
maintance after divorce – wife didn’t claim money from husb as he was no in a good fin pos- later she
claimed – in return of hub promise wife refrain to apply in court this forms no consideration
41. P. Balamba v. K Krishnayya

Privity of Contract
42. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres vs Selfridge – contract to sell nbot at a lower price and was said to convey
it further but the 3rd party didn’t listened and was sued by 1 party , no privity exist and person cant do
two pos at one time i.e of agent and principal.
43. Essar Oil v. Hindustan Shipyard – cont b/w hind and ongc and essar was appointed as sub
contractor by hindus and there was breach but ongc cnat sue essar directly as privity of contract
44. M.C.Chacko vs State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum – kc chako took loan and died bank wants
to take money from his son mc chaco – in will whther a ‘chargr’ was created – kc didn’t intended to
create charge on mc

Promissory Estoppel
45. Central London Property Trust vs High Trees House - estoppel to be applicable if a promise was
made which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the person making
the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made and which was in fact so
acted on.
46. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh – govt 1t grants exemption later grant
concession which co. accepts afterwards revokes everything Waiver means abandonment of a right
either express or implied from conduct, but the basic element is that it must be “an intentional act
with knowledge
]
47. Hughes vs Metropolitan Railways - If a promise is implied in negotiations and one party relies on
that promise then it is inequitable to allow the other party to act as though the promise does not exist.
48. Manuelsons Hotels v State of Kerala -

Capacity to Contract
49. Leslie vs Shell (minor) – minor fraudulently misrepresented her age – he spent the money –
restitution stops when repayment begins – ordering him to restore money wouyld be like enforing a
avoid contract- until money is traceable, it had to be restituted but if not traceable the no restitution
50. Mohori Bibi vs Dharmodas Ghose (minor) – the agent knew that he was entering with a minor-
cont with minor void ab initio if the party didn’t knew about it – in this case the oarty knew about the
contract
51. Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary (minor) -
52. Manik Chand v. Ramachandra (minor)
53. Dadasaheb Dasrathrao v. Bai Nahani
54. Proform Sports Management vs Proactive Sports Management (minor) – rooney case – entered
into contract with proform but after expiration contracted with proactive – proform sued rooney –
English case – contract with minor voidable
55. Monosseh Jacob Monosseh vs Shapurji Hormusji Harver -
56. Imperial loan Co. vs Stone – a person signed a prom note as surety but later found to be lunatic –
two things need to be proved to plead insanity as defend – 1 st incapable and 2nd that the other party
knew his condition.
57. Nilima Ghosh vs Harjeet Kaur & Ors. – same ratio as previous
58. S.Basavaraj vs V.N. Adilakshmamma – amount had to be adjusted during final transaction - plead
that he was drunk when he signed the contract – was a self inducted drunker and was in a capacity to
contract to contract when he signed the document
59. Charanjit Singh vs Chattaranjan Pal & Others -
60. Chacko v. Mahadevan – executed some sale deed in favour of Mahadevan but later found that he
was given involuntary intoxication – res ispa loquitour (things speak for themselves) as nobody will
sell prop of 54000 in 1000 and also medical reports is evident of it.
61. Dunhill v. Burgin – a car accident claim- when pleaded before court ques. Arose that burgin lacked
litigation capacity.

Coercion
62. Chief Engineer General vs Sai Suraj Construction - Coercion is a question of fact which depends
on the circumstances of each case, a mere probability is insufficient to support a plea of coercion.
63. Bansraj Das vs Secretary of State – father convicted and for the fine to be realized, state attachd a
property which had his son as joint owner and because of the pressure of the govt. the son had to pay
the property to the state – later he demanded back his property saying that he gave it under coercion
from the govt. – it was duress as it was under threat and mere use of actual force is not necessary.
64. P. Rengaswami Pillai vs Srirangam Municipal Council – for retail trade licence the vendors took
retail license and municipality charged for it – later they sued municipality to coercing them to give
the fees and they are not entitled to and are doing illegal act- the money/consent should be given
under threat and in this case it was considered an obligation by the parties to give the fees
65. CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher (economic duress) – cigratte were delivered at wrong address and
was stolen from there before delivery at the right place – idk why in the jud. wrote that it was found
that although the def was sole seller of that cigarttes but they had equal bargaining power therefore no
eco duress.
66. Sara International v Rizhao Steel Holding Group – deficient iron content 61% 60.59% - Three
requirements to constitute economic duress: (a) Pressure which is illegitimate; (b) Its effect on the
victim i.e. that the pressure must be a significant cause inducing the Claimant to enter into the
contract; (c) Lack of reasonable alternative i.e. that the practical effect of the pressure was that there is
compulsion on, or a lack of practical choice for, the victim.
This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is
equal or almost equal.

Undue Influence
67. Sita Devi vs Prithi Chand & Ors. – the lady was pardanashin and uneducated and signed a gift deed
thinking she is signing a will –
68. Poosathurai v Kannapa Chettiar - cont for cotton bales – buyer refused delivery as the seller didn’t
gave invoice as asked by buyer - The judges held that was no reason to doubt the bales. The
defendants were in fact trying to avoid the purchase because they wished to avoid the falling market.-
The goods were under the control of the plaintiffs and they were willing to deliver.Actual physical
possession of goods is not necessary to satisfy tender.
69. Mohanlal v. Kashiram
70. Lingo Bhimrao Naik vs Dattatraya Shripad Jamadagni
71. Subhash Chandra Das Mushib vs Ganga Prasad Das Mushib - that the court trying a case of
undue influence under Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 must consider two things to start with,
namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a position to
dominate the will of the donor, and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage
over the donor?
72. Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v Karnal Distillery Company – HUF family – laldli karta – was dismissed by
conspiracy - A vague or general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore
 be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence,
and the unfair advantage obtained by the other.
73. Parbhu v Puttu and Others -[In present case, plaintiff was living under the authority of his adoptive
mother such that he was dependent on her for maintenance and education to the extent that she was in
a position to dominate his will. Secondly, in threatening plaintiff, she used her position of dominance
to obtain an advantage aversive to plaintiff’s rights; plaintiff wouldn’t have executed the gift deed but
for the threatening attitude, pressure and admonitions from defendant, relatives and other well wishers
of family. Thirdly, plaintiff wasn’t aware of his legal rights nor was he allowed to consult his natural
father; he didn’t act with open and free mind and with the knowledge that the gift deeds which ere by
themselves invalid could be validated only by his signature. Therefore, the deed is liable to be set
aside.]
74. Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge- husband took loan and mortagae the house said wife to sign It,
later unable to pay loan and and bank approached wife -
The House of Lords held that for banks to have a valid security they must ensure that their customers
have independent legal advice if they are in a couple where the loan will, based on constructive or
actual knowledge (either suffices), be used solely for the benefit of one person-Lord Nicholls held that
if the banks ensured that the wife had had independent advice, they could not be responsible for that
advice being defective. 
75. Dai-chi Karkaria vs ONGC (Economic Duress)
Standard form of Contract
76. Central Inland Water Transport Corp. vs Brojo Nath Ganguly(unconscionable bargain)- co. shut
down and employed tranfers to another co. from which they were kicked out after some time – the
parties were not on equal footing and unequal bargaining power – adhesion cont (take it or leave it)
77. M/s Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. N. Satchidanand – indigo wala case – jurisdiction and adhesion
contract

Fraud and undue influence

78. Barclays Bank v O’Brien – a house was mortgaged in name of hub and wife but wife had no interest
– bank said the couple to take legal advice before signing but they ignored and wife signed the
mortgage relying on hubby word – bank later want house – house not given as HOL agreed that hub
had undue influence over wife and misrepresented the facts - as a result, the wife had equity against
her husband to set the deed aside. Such equity was enforceable against a third party who had
constructive or actual notice of the situation that gave rise to the equity or for whom the husband was
an agent – Barclays in this case. 
79. Laidlaw vs Organ – sale of tobacco after war , buyer knew that price would increase next day but
when asked by seller of anything he knew about the price he remained silent - A buyer is not required
to share knowledge of any external factors that might affect the value of the goods in an exchange
with the seller of those goods as long as there is no imposition of one party on the other.
80. R.C. Thakkar vs Bombay Housing Board -
81. Sorabshah Pestonji vs The Secretary Of State For India
82. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs State Of Maharashtra -it was noted that suppression of a material
document would also amount to a fraud on the court. Although, negligence is not fraud, it can be
evidence of fraud.
83. David Birkett v Acorn Business Machines – canon printer replace – the co. and photocopier co.
defrauded the Panasonic finance co. to give finance in one of the field in which they don’t give
finance - the parties had entered into a contract, which both knew was to be used to defraud a third
party finance company. When one sued the other for breach, the court refused to order the contract to
be enforced when he became aware of the fraud.
84. Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar – share speculatioin

Misrepresentation
85. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon – petrolpump – not matched the profit that were told – later
renegotiated the term even after loss but still no -profit – mardon stop paying rent and esso filed suit-
skill. Esso had much experience and expertise at their disposal as they were in a better position to
ascertain the much likely throughput with all the data available; and it is no doubt that in present case,
 estimate made by Esso reasonably had a great influence over Mardon who had negligible experience
as compared to Esso. Thereafter, if in preparing the forecast, they negligently commit ‘fatal
error’, relying upon which Mardon entered into contract, they were liable for breach of collateral
warranty. Mardon wasn’t held to be compensated for “loss of bargain” as he was given no bargain
that the throughput would be 200,000 gallons. Rather he was to be compensated for losses he had
suffered as a result of relying to his detriment on the projection made by Esso.
86. With vs O’Flanagan – medical practice worth 2000 but actually not worth the amount as Flanagan
became ill but he didn’t disclose this fact to the buyer - Mr With could rescind either because there
was a duty to point out the change in circumstance or because the representation continued till the
point when the contract was signed.
87. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd – Hedley was a adv agency and they wanted to
check the position of their buyer , so they contacted there bank to check there creditworthiness in
return bank replied that they were in a good position and but bank owes no responsibility for the
information – later the buyer defaulted and court held that there exist a special relation bw the party in
which onme party knew that the information they provide would be relied upon by the other party byt
in this case the bank explicitily told that they owed no care
88. Derry v Peeke- a bought share in b co. as B said that they had perm to use steam engines which they
have applied for but not yet received – knew they would be unable to follow through with their
representations.
For an action under misrep to stand, it had to be shown that the party knew that they are
misrepresenting – in this case the co. was ina honest belief that tthey will get license – therefore, no
misrep

Mistake
89. Smith v Hughes – s deliverd oats but h refused to take it as he demanded good old oats but s denies
the word old – held that the word old not used and s was under impression that he was contracting for
good oats - contract. If the buyer has full opportunity of inspecting the products contracted for and
thereupon form his judgment, and if he relies only on his own judgment, the rule caveat
emptor applies.
90. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd – level hired bell and snelling and after there work in the co. was given
retirremnt and extra money was given when they rerired – later L found that they made transaction for
their personal gain and defrauded clients – l want the money back - B and S were under no legal
obligation to reveal their secret transactions to Lever. Hence, their concealment didn’t render the
contract voidable. Neither did they induce Lever to pay them compensation (howsoever innocently)
nor did they actively conceal it from them - “Mistake as to the quality of thing contracted for doesn’t
affect assent unless it is the mistake of both parties and is as to the existence of some quality which
makes the thing essentially different from the thing as it was believed to be.”
91. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall(snapping up- to buy quickly) – printer was of 3854 but by
mistake of the co. was put up on site for 66 on the site and buyer placed order for 100 printers but
later the mistake was disc and they cancelled the contract -the buyer had constructive knowledge
about the mistake by the seller – there -
92. Shogun Finance vs Hudson – a fraudster purchased a car by impersonating mr. patel and sold it to h
who bought it in good faith – SF came to know the mistake and want car back from H - no contract
will be formed when a person accepting an offer believes on reasonable grounds that he is accepting
an offer from someone other than the person by whom it has in fact been made,was mistake on the
fundamental object of the contract- HP agreement are consumer credit agreement, wherein the
identity of the person is fundamental to the whole transaction because it is essential to the checking of
the credit rating of the applicant borrower b)    The company was not willing to do business with any
person, rather it wanted to do business only with the person whose credit worthiness they had checked
93. Raffles v Wichelhaus – cotton bales on ship Peerless – there were two ships named peerless and due
to mistake of the name of ship the buyer was unable to take the delivery of the ship- no consensus
among the parties therefore no contract (dissent – the fundamental object was sale of contract and not
sailing of goods, was immaterial on which ship, the goods arrives - Intention is of no avail UNLESS
stated at the time of the contract.
94. Dhulipudi Namayya v Union of India - if a contractor abandons the ongoing construction work, the
measure of damages is the cost incurred in completing the work.
95. Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd vs State Of Bihar - the Government represented to A that it had the
right to forfeit the lease on Bond and grant a fresh lease to him. A entered into a contract in
consequence. But as a result of a Privy Council decision the Government’s title became restricted and
it was incapable of making out the title, which it stated it had at the time of the contract. The Supreme
Court held that in the circumstances the contract was not void on the ground of mistake and
Government must perform that part of the agreement, which it was possible to perform. (promisoory
estopple me there is no question of law and if contract gets void due to some law which renders the
power of the govt nullified thenm it cant be pleaded under promissory estoppel)

Non-est Factum
96. Saunders v Anglia Building Society – gallie signed a sale deed thinking it to be a gift deed , when
his nephew said to sign it as her spectacles were broken - the true principle of non est factum is that a
mistake as essential to the nature of the transaction is within the doctrine but a mistake as to its terms
are not. A document should be held to be void (as opposed to voidable) only when the element of
consent to it is totally lacking, i.e., when the transaction which the document purports to effect is
essentially different in substance or in kind from the transaction intended
97. Gallie v Lee – was in court of appeal (same as above)
98. Prem Singh v Birbal – the party didn’t sued even under 3 years when he attained majiroty nor under
12 years therefore barred by limitation

Consent
99. Tarsem Singh v Sukhminder Singh – def intended to sell the land in terms of kanal and buyer
intended to buy in terms of bigha – there was no consensus ad idem and it can be legitimately said
that the agreement was ;discovered to be void The words discovered to be void;, therefore,
comprehend a situation in which the parties were suffering from a mistake of fact from the very
beginning but had not realised, at the time of entering into the agreement or signing of the document,
that they were suffering from any such mistake and had, therefore, acted bona fide on such agreement.

Public Policy- Unlawful Consideration and Object

100. Taylor vs Chester – gave 50 pounds in a brothel to have wine and food and 25 pounds were to
return at the end but the brothel owner didn’t gave him back- court held that the case was not just
about money and food but the problem of illegality and immorality arose as it was in a brothel
therefore, no money
101. Sundara Gownder v Balachandran – def was barred by law to participate in an auction and he
hired plaintiff to bid for him and transfer the property after the auction but he failed to do so – the
contract was void from starting as it defeat the purpose if law and Any action to realise the amount
pursuant to void agreement cannot be entertained by a court of law.
102. Teegula Babiah v Mohammad Abdus Subhan Khan – abdus was to transfer liquor license in
name of telugu and get 50 % profit but telugu didn’t – no master servant relationship as telugu didn’t
posses power over abdus – and contract is void as it is oppose to public policy and defeats the purpose
of law.
103. Surasaibalini Debi vs Phanindra Mohan Majumdar – A named a property to her mistress and
later mistress didn’t returned the property – court said that this contract is void as it is against the
public policy

Agreements in Restraint of Trade

104. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola - co. had to bottle and sell coca cola for 5 years and in
the mean time can not work for anybody else and if they need to change control they need to take
perm from coca cola – guj co. transferred control with pepsi and then terminated the agreement – coke
filed for injuction – non compete agreement are void after period of termination and whther the
termination was reasonable and whther It was restraint of trade is not taken into account
105. Percept D’ Mark v Zaheer Khan – percept had agreement with ZK that they should be given
first chance of refusal but zk contracted with another firm without giving chance to percept - contract
of agency as one entered here between the parties is of personal in nature such that forcing the
negative covenant will mean compelling the defendant to get his affairs managed by the plaintiff
company even after the initial agreement has not been breached and has been lawfully terminated; this
will be in restrain of his right to trade with any person in any manner he chooses.
106. Superintendence Company of India v Shri Krishan Murugai – mr. murugai worked for SCI
and signed a non compete for 2 years from date of cessation – he opened a business after cessation of
same service – held that the restrictive covenant is only applicable only during the contrct and if such
covenant extend beyond contract is void .
107. Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents & Ors. v Union of India and
Ors.

Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings

108. Manohar Singh And Sons v Raksha Karamchari Coop. GR. H. SOC. And another – art 28(b)
introduced - arbitration clause challenged
109. National Insurance Company Limited v Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Company and Anr –
limitation in insurance contract is allowed. – sgn had factories which had riot and strike clause which
prevented the parties from any damage caused due to strike and riots – insurance which said that it
didn’t cover total or partial cessation – workers did strike - The agreement was held to be valid for it
did not restrict absolutely nor did it limit the time frame within which a cause of action could arise. It
merely extinguished the liability of the Insurance Company or the right of the plaintiff to claim any
benefits under the policy after the period of 12 months was over

Uncertainty (Misc)
110. Pawan Kumar Dutt v Shakuntala Devi -
111. Hillas v Arcos timber sold and contract to enter into a subsequent contract – court allowed
the only thing to be nego was price and nothing else – ratio – a cont to negotiate is enforceable
and

Wagering Agreements
112. Gherulal Parekh v Mahadeodas – 2 huf come to contract for a wagering contract – held that
contract for contracting to get into a e=wagering agreement is nit voidl
113. Subhash Kumar Manwani v State of MP – state allowed betting and manwani won but court
held that no matters who enters into wagering contract it is void

Contingent Contracts
114. HPA International v Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani and Others - “When an agreement is
entered into subject to ratification by others not party to contract, a concluded contract is not arrived
at and such ratification is held to be condition precedent for coming into force of a concluded
contract.”
115. Gian Chand v Gopala and Others – entered into purchase of property which later discovered
was under land acquisition act – wants back earnest money - Contingent contracts to do or not to do
anything if an uncertain future event does not happen, can be enforced when the happening of that
event becomes impossible, and not before - As the clause pertaining to the refund of earnest money in
case of notification for Land Acquisition was expressly mentioned in the contract, and contingent
contracts are valid appellant is entitled to the refund of the earnest money.
116. Smt. Deokabai v Uttam – to register in the name of uttam, perm of competent authority is
required - This is clearly a contingent term. It is clear that both parties recognised the need for the
appellant to find another house
117. Energy Watchdog v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission – coal price increased -
118. Om Builders v Anil Chinubhai Kilachand
119. Steel Authority of India v Tycoon Traders – foreest reserve area
120. Dhanrajamal Gobindram vs Shamji Kalidas And Co. – force majeure clause but usual word
hai to court would give meaning to it

Performance (Section 37-67)

121. Jagannath Patnaik v Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan Mohapatra (Personal Contracts) –
def was diwan of plaintiffs property for 7 yrs but his service was terminated in between because of
death of the plaintiff – he demanded money for the whole 7 yrs,– if contract is based upon
relationship then contract stands cancel if death occurs
122. I. K. Sohan Singh v State Bank of India(S.46)- as and when – mode of performance…..if and
when -contingent condition – money to be paid when the former is in position to pay and asap – if no
time Is given then to be paid within reasonable time
123. Mukanchand Rajaram Balia v Nihalchand Gurrmikhrai(s.47) - expressed to be governed by
the rules of Bombay Cotton Trade Association subject only to the exception that the contract could
under no circumstances stand cancelled – the goods to be delivered before 1 pm of the due date or it
stands cancel -
124. Mohammed v Pushpalatha(S.51) – toilet – rent case
125. Bolton v Mahadeva (Substantial Performance) -.central heating system – but with many defects
- ,  while considering whether there has been a substantial performance, both nature of defects and
proportion between the  cost of rectifying them and the contract price needs to be taken into account
126. Cutter v Powell (Substantial Performance) – cutter to sail with powell for 10 weeks but died in
7 week – no wage paid – demands payment for substantial perf – no wags for part perf as voyaging
for 10 weeks was condition precedent to the obligation to pay.
127. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Substantial Performance) – carpenter were removed as
they were not paid on time and were removed after they did the work - recognize the right of party to
recover upon any substantial performance of his obligations rendered, even under lump-sum
contracts, unless a provision express in the contract or implied from the circumstances suggests that
parties intended the payment to be made only after the precise and complete performance by it.
128. Benode Behari Das Gupta v Benoy Bhusan Choudhury (S.51Reciprocal Promises) – sold
house for 400 and contracted with def to sell the house later to him for 400- he didn’t resold the house
a she was having good profit from the renting of that house – def repeatedly ignored the plaintiff
request to sell - Section 51 of Contract Act provides that when a contract consists of reciprocal
promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise
unless the promisee is read and willing to perform his reciprocal promise. – he was wiling to perform the
contract bt the def was not therefore court ordered to sell
129. State of Orissa v Harekrishna Mahatab and Others – state contracted co. to carry iron ore in
theoir boat – def took loan to buy powerful engines but bought second hand engines and govt also
formed contract to carry 20000 tons per year – govt handed one engine to def and def paid amt which
was adjusted from the loan amt – def stopped services and state sued for remaining payment - the
term of loan agreement, that in case repay of loan by installment becomes impossible, defendant shall
be liable to refund the entire amount outstanding at that time. This indicates that loan is not a part of
the transport agreement and there was no implied term that in case plaintiff is responsible for non-
performance of its part of the contract, loan would not be recoverable.

Time as (or not as) an essence of the contract

130. The Food Corporation of India v M/s. Anupama Warehousing Establishment – warehouse
was to be build but even after giving 8 extensions it wasn’t build – time is essence of the contract
131. Nevilal Rohita Construction Private Limited and Another v State of Bihar and Others-
contract for repairing of road – extension given but in middle of extension contract was rescinded –
executive eng was right in doing as the co. didn’t showed any seriousness towards the contract as tiem
was essence of cont and they made no significance progress in completing the contrct
132. Saradamani Kandappan and another v S. Rajalakshmi and another – def agreed to sell the
property and paymet in installments and mention that time is the essence of the contrct – but plaintiff
didn’t payed last installment on time- in the case of sale of immovable property there is a
presumption time being an essence of the contract.
133. KS Vidyanadam v Vairavan - In case of sale of immovable property, even if time is not the
essence of the contract, the court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the
conditions are (i) from the express terms of the contract (ii) from the nature of the property and (iii)
from the surrounding circumstances.

Refusal to accept performance (Section 38)

134. Startup v Macdonald – lineseed to be delivered in last 14 days of amrch – delivered after 9pm on
the last date – delivery was reasonable
135. Balwan Singh Raghav v. Dalip Kumar -
136. neail Bhai Rahim and Others v Adam Osman and Others -
137. P. L. S A. R. S. Arunachallam Chettiar v Krishna Ayyar and Others – def didn’t took delivery
of the goods as was contended that the plaintiff have not provided them with invouice they reqd and
quality check - There is evidence to show that market as falling and it was not in the defendant’s
interest to perform the contracts, he was clearly trying to get out of his contracts.
138. Guna Krishna Gauns and Another v Antonio Joao Braganza @ Antush Braganza and Others – def
gave power of attorney and he entered into a contract against his contentions – to revoke the sale, he
issued public notice saying that he is not his attorney - The plaintiff alleged that they sold the property
at the instance of the defendants and the power of attorney only authorized them to develop the
property and not sell it.
139. Barber Maran and Another v Ramana Goundan and Another(Joint CREDITORS) - Facts:
Defendant made a payment to a party that was not an agent on that behalf of the plaintiff. He was
jointly liable to both for a debt. - where a contract is made in favour of more than one person, they
must be taken to be severally entitled under it, for they cannot be jointly and severally entitled.

Frustration
140. Ms. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Company Limited v Shri Andavar and
Company – eucalyptus hybrid and wood to be sold but wood not available- not frustration as parties
should know as it was reasonable and negligent on part of party
141. Naihati Jute Mills v. Khyaliram Jagannath -
142. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. v Sardar Gurbachan Singh - nature of the contract it was for
development of lands to make them fit for residential occupation by construction of roads etc. the
circumstances like the prevalence of war at the time of entering into contract, difficulty in procuring
materials because of scarcity, no commencement of work even on the date of requisition and the terms
which provided for no time specification as well as the temporal nature ofrequisition made the courts
believe that requisition did not affect the fundamental basis of the bargain
143. Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur

Apportionment of Payments (Section 59 to 61)

144. Cory Brothers and Company Ltd. V Owners of the Turkish Steamship – mecca medina case -
case of a current account between parties, if payments are made without appropriation of them, they
are to be attributed in point of law to the earliest items in this account. In the present case, at the time
payment was made no account had been delivered by the appellant to the respondents. The debts in
respect of the two vessels arose from transactions which were entirely distinct, they had never been
brought into a common account.
145. Clayton’s Case (Devaynes and ors v Noble and ors.)- clayton took loan when in partnership
firm and even after his death loan came in – partners became bankrupt in paying back and demad
clayton property - The main issue in this case is that in a situation of multiple debts, where neither the
debtornor the creditor has mentioned the method of appropriation of payment, is there any rule to be
followed for appropriation? – in case of no mention the payment has to be appropriated in terms of
debtor , to the oldest det or to the debt whose time period is finishing fast
146. Ouseph Lukka v Ananthanarayana Iyer Ramakrishna Iyer - when a debtor owes several
distinct debt to a particular person and makes payment, either with express intimation or under
circumstances implying that the payment is to be applied to the discharge of some particular debt, the
payment if accepted, must be appropriated accordingly. (first to the earliest debt.
147. ICDS Ltd. V Smithaben H Patel and Others - In Parr Banking Co. Ltd. v. Yates the old and
well-settled rule; that where both principal and interest are due the sums paid on account must be
applied first to interest. Post-decretal payments have to be made either in terms of decree or in
accordance with the agreement arrived at between the parties though on the general principles

Decretal case
148. Chaganlal Shrilal v Gopilal Choturam - The amount due in this present case for costs, interest
and principal as awarded by the decree however constitue only one debt and sections 59 to 61 do not
apply. But the general principal applied to a single debt is that the payments should be applied in the
first instance to interest and then to the principal the balance only so far as those payments exceed the
interest due.

Novation, Alteration and Rescission of Contract

149. UOI V Kishorilal Gupta (Arbitration Clause) – partied made new cont after failure of previous
contracts - event of default by plaintiff, government reserved the right to recover the balance amount
plaintiff failed to give any of the agreed amounts to the government -arbitration proceeding start -
The courts have to consider, what is the effect of the new contracts on the old ones? And, whether the
arbitration clause would survive? Therefore, if parties with the intention and consensus ad
idem rescind original contract in entirety then arbitration clause (which is collateral to substantive
obligations under the contract and is not rescinded usually after the breach of such obligations)
contained in the original contract also gets rescinded, however, if no such rescission takes place then
arbitration clause will subsist In present case, the words, ‘in full and final settlement of’ are
conclusive that the parties intended the new settlement contract to be in ‘complete’ substitution of
original contract such that the ‘clauses collateral to substantive stipulations’ were also abrogated with
the original contract.
150. Rankanidhi Sahu v Nandkishore Sahu-
151. Pachkodi Gulab v Krishnaji (Material Alteration) – man instituted property in name of four
brothers who were minor and deleted one the brother name without his knowledge so that the
limitation period extends- Held that the alteration was material alteration and rendered the sarkat void
– any change which cause effect in legal language and effect is material altercation and any if the
other party had not accepted the material change then it would render the conyract void.
152. New Standard Bank Ltd. V Probodh Chandra Chakravarty - In novation, the question is not
only whether a new debtor has consented to assume liability but whether the creditor has agreed to
accept his liability in substitution of the liability of the original debtor.
153. Murlidhar Chatterjee v International Film Company – market not in a good condition new
contract for return the old films and give new films but not given
154. …..no matter who put end to the contract those who got benefitted from the contract had to
return the money.
155. Chunnamal Ram Nath v Moolchand Ram Bhagat – goods to be delivered in wooden boxes in
London but as it was not allowed In wooden boxes , the seller offered to sell in bales but buyer
refused and cancelled the goods- plaintiff claimed for non delivery - it is the plaintiffs themselves who
by wrongfully refusing to take deliveries under the contract have given a chance to defendants to ‘put
an end to it’. – plaintiff himself cancelled the contract therefore cant claim damages
156. M/s Young Achievers v IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. (Arbitration Clause) - Whether an
arbitration clause is a collateral term in the contract, - the arbitration agreement would survive for the
purpose of resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract? We may indicate
that so far as the present case is concerned, parties have entered into a fresh contract contained in the
Exit paper
157. Mulheim Pipecoatings Gmbh v Welspun Fintrade Ltd and Another (Also, doctrine of
separability) -
158. Heyman v Darwins - An arbitration clause is a collateral term of a contract. The existence of the
contract is a necessary condition for its operation. Also if the original contract has no legal existence,
the arbitration clause will not operate.
159. Lata Construction and Others v Dr Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah – co. build flats and
collected installments from the buyer but didn’t hand over the possession when they asked – the co.
 enterd in to a frsh agreement to give back the installments and rescinded the old agreement – they
breached the new agreement - It was specifically mentioned in the second agreement that the first
agreement of 1987 would be terminated only on the full payment of 951000/- to the respondents – this
means that right under old agreement had not been given up and def still have to provide the flats and
the old agreement will only extinguish when installment amt will be provided
160. K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Merchants vs P. Theperumal Chetty A Merchant - The parties entered
into a contract. There was a breach. The parties novated the earlier contract. Now the contention by
one party is that the novation is invalid as it was done after breach of initial contract. Common law
stated that novation could be done only pre-breach. The court held that there was nothing in the
language of S.62 of ICA to exclude the scope of novation from post breach situations.
161. Payana Reena Layana Chetty v Pana Lana Pana Lana Palaniappa Chetty – appellant carried
buz for resp in Ceylon when he was out for 3 yrs. After that some dispute arose and it was concluded
that the resp will pay some amount to him in way of two promisory note with interest known as chetty
interest i.e bank rate at given time (which was bw 6 and 7 percent) and both parties were clear on this.
By oversight no interest was inserted in the agreement and appealant went to one of the arbitrator and
inserted in the agreement 9 percent interest . – material alteratiion
162. Nathu Lal v Mussamat Gomti Kaur(Material Alteration) – plaintiff executed a sale deed in
favour of plaintiff who in turn executed it in name of others on the same day – both deeds intend to
create “mortgage by conditional sale” ( it is a mortgage which appears to be a sale with a condition
that the property sold would be transferred back to the original owner on repayment of loan). - The
document A, sale deed and document B, agreement to release, being part of the same transaction
created the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between defendant and plaintiff respectively as
soon as they were executed in 1844. If these unilateral alterations were to be held ‘material’ then they
would have the effect of making the agreement void. However, such alterations which effected just
before the pleadings, will not make the whole mortgage void ab initio so as to nullify its
conveyancing effect 
163. State of Bihar v Ram Ballabh Das Jalan and Another - plaintiff had certain debt owed by resp
– to repay he said that food supply and bank of bohar owed him so take money from them- he
recovered some money and then demanded remaining amount from the resp – he contended that by
accepting the offer to tae from the bank the plaintiff substituted the contract under s 62 Novation
occurs with alterations in the terms of existing contract or introduction of new parties to the contract.
It is not consistent with the original contract and the rights of the original contract are extinguished.
Novation is the substitution of a contract and not a mere variation of its terms. There were no
alteration of terms therefore n novation
164. Morris v Baron – morris contract for sale of goods to baron – dispute arose - Morris demanded
payment of supplied pieces of cloth while Baron claimed damages for breach of contract out of delay
in supplying rest of the pieces – decided to withdraw the contract and morris to pay 30 pounds and no
legal proceedings- but morris didn’t gave – whether there was a new contract - in present case, both
the parties mutually intended and agreed not merely to vary the original contract but to set it aside and
substitute another for it, as the two contracts are in conflict with each other w.r.t. fundamental or
material provisions which go to their ‘root’.
165. Khardah Company v Raymon & Co.(assignment) – appl contracted with resp for sale of jute
from india to Bangladesh – but he failed to so as the govt prohibited sale of forward contract(
A forward contract is a private agreement between two parties giving the buyer an obligation to
purchase an asset (and the seller an obligation to sell an asset) at a set price at a future point in time.) -
Under all forward contracts, except those which are non-transferable, specific delivery can be
declared as illegal An assignment of a contract might result either by the transfer of the rights or
transfer of the obligation there under; obligations under a contract cannot be assigned except with the
consent of the promisee and this consent then results in novation, The goods were non-transferable for
the sellers as well.therefore contract is legla

Recession (S.63)
166. MS Shoes East Ltd. V Munak Chemicals Ltd – plaintiff had to send gssp to Bangladesh and he
contracted with def who manuf gssp but he didn’t supplied it on stipulated date – plain sued def – was
 suit barred by limitation- the promisee on refusal of promise to perform has a right to elect to put an
end to contract and accept later perf
167. All India Power Engineer v Sasan Power Ltd.-
168. Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v Nilima Rani and Others

Restitution (Section 65)

169. Kuju Colleries v Jharkhand Mines Ltd -
170. M/s Alopi Prashad v UOI (Quantum Meruit) – alopi prasad sold ghee to uoi and due to war the
price of ghee was decreased and govt assured that the price will be grown after war but they didn’t .-
held that alopi did under quantum meriit and for suit under quantum merit there should be a contract
and there should be stipulated price.
171. Puran Lal Shah v Sate of UP (Quantum Meruit) – raod material would be found nearby but
was unable to find it which increased the cost – plead on basis of quantum meruit same as befoe
172. Harnath Kaur v Inder Bahadur Singh
173. Uttamchand v Mohandas – plaintiff owner of shop def contracted to run the shop for 2 yrs and
plaintiff will provide maintance of the shop and will give back them the shop after 2 yrs(def knew
plaintiff was a minor) – the cont was void from the starting as the plaintiff knew that hwe was
entering into traqnsaction with minor and it was void ab initio and not discovered to be void

Unjust enrichment [Section 68-72]

174. Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd. And Another – partner defrauded partner and took clients money
and spent it in casino – casino ordered to return money and the chips were only a convenient mechanism
which facilitated gaming in casino gambler didn’t buy them for money from the club as throughout they
remained property of club and were to be redeemed by the club for money it was void by way of gaming
or wagering under the statute, hence, by accepting the bet, casino doesn’t thereby provide any valuable
consideration as it was under no legal obligation to honour the bet. If it pays anything out of gambler’s
successful bet that is to be treated as mere gift and not any valuable consideration

Section 68
175. Nash v Inman – tailor supplied 13 waistcoats to minor, student refused to pay – no necessity as the
def had to prove that it is necessary (roti kapda makan ) but he was unable to prove necessary
176. P.E.R.M Annamalai Chetty v Satyavadivel Muthuswami – mother and agent signed there names
on behalf of minor without minor knowing on a prom note
Section 69
177. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v The State of Gondal – def solad certain mills without
paying overdue taxes, was sued by minor who now has to pay yaxes – should plaintiff be
reimbursed – interest is main criteria to get reimbursed – the plaintiff shows that he has interest in
the property as he paid the taxes himself to save the property
178. Musammat Munni Bibi alias Ambika v Trilokinath - person making a payment to recover it is
that he should really believe and honestly believe that he must make the payment in his own
interest. -
179. Boja Sellappa Reddy v Vridhachala Reddy -The Plaintiff paid revenue due in respect of certain
land which stood registered in his name, but which belonged to the defendant and was in the latter’s
possession when the money was paid. The plaintiff files a suit for recovery. - Where land is
assessed for revenue the owner thereof cannot by virtue of his ownership alone be held as
compellable to pay the revenue.
180. Mothooranath Chuttopadhyaya v Kristokumar Ghose – property divided and had some
mortgage on it and the def so save his property had to pay the mortagge on the whole property and
later demand the money - plaintiff was interested in the payment of this money, because, he says, if
he had not paid it his land would have been sold, and it was a debt which the defendant was bound
by law to pay, because the mortgagee had legal means to recover it against him.
Section 70
181. Mulamchand v State of Madhya Pradesh – mulam got rights to collect forest produce for 3 yrs –
after collecting for 1 yr, an act came which prohibited the collection of forest produce – mulam
 demanded 10000 back which he deposited to collect the produce - that the Contract entered into by
him was void because Art. 299 had not been complied with. - However the refund of Rs. 10,000
claimed by the appellant could not be allowed as he did not satisfy th conditions of s. 70 of the
Indian Contract Act. The perso who seeks restitution has a duty to account to the defendant for
what he has received in the transaction from which his right to restitution arises. - he was unable to
provide evidence of how much benefit he got in one yr therefore no money back
182. UOI v Sitaram Jaiswal – plai supplied mac in tyre to def which he wrongfully rejected after
considerable time – the seller offered to restore the goods but def disagreed - The three. ingredients
to support the cause of action under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act are: First, the goods are
to be delivered lawfully or anything has to be done fo another person lawfully. Second, the thing
done. or the goods delivered is so, done or delivered intending to do so gratuitously Third, the
person to whom the goods are delivered the benefit thereof -
183. Sri Sri Gajapati Kistna v P Srinivasa Charlu -
184. State of WB v BK Mondal and sons – contractor did more work than stipulated in the contract on
request of an officer – demands money for extra work - . 3 criterions--> provide goods, provide
them lawfully, there must be an acceptance / usuage (voluntary) to be a ground for unjust
enrichment - Since the officers making such requests were unauthorized by the government to do
so, hence, there was neither any agreement between the parties nor the rule of Promissory Estoppel
could be invoked
185. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs Tata Communication Ltd – contract bw mtnl and tata and
clause saying that liquidated damages in case of breach will be 12 per of purchase value- breach
mtnl deducted more amount than stipulated – mtnl pleaded quantum meruit – claim of quantum
meruit cant stand due to existence of a contract as QM is an obligation created other than a contract
– therefore money over 12 per should be refunded
Section 72
186. Mahabir Kishore and Others v State of MP – govt charged 7.5 per on liquor sale – court passed
that it is illegal to collect 7.5 per but govt still collected it – mahabir filed for the 7.5 per he paid –
govt plead mistake as they had no knowledge of such - A tax paid under mistake of law is
refundable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. The term ‘mistake’ in S. 72 comprised
within its scope a mistake of fact and that under that section a party is entitled to recover money
paid by mistake or under coercion, if it is established that the payment, even though it be of tax, has
been made by the party labouring under a mistake of Law, the party receiving the money is bound
to repay or return it, though it might have been paid voluntarily
187. Sales Tax Officer v Kanhaiya Lal – plaintiff claim refund of sales tax levied on forward contract
when it was declared illegal to collect such tax - If mistake of law has led to the formation of a
contract, S.21 enacts that that contract is not for that reason voidable. If money is paid under that
contract, it cannot be said that that money was paid under “mistake of law” for it was paid under a
valid contract, and had it not been paid it could have been enforced. Payment, “by mistake” in S.72
refers to a payment which wasn’t legally due and which couldn’t have been enforced; mistake is in
thinking that money paid was due when in fact it was not due. – atr 21 contract made under mistake
of law – art 72 cont performed under mistake of law.
188. Sri Shiba Prasad Singh v Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi - where there was not sufficient
evidence to show why the lessee under a mining lease had made over-payments of royalties to the
lessor, but the money was paid under the mistaken belief that it was legally due, that was sufficient
to bring the case within s 72 of the Indian Contract Act and to entitle the lessee to recover by
adjustment or set off the sum overpaid.
189. Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India -

Damages [Section 73]

190. Hadley v Baxendale – shaft – layman didn’t knew the urgency – no damages as was not forseeable
191. Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries- engineers could have foreseen the urgency of boiler –
liable for damages
192. Murlidhar v Harishchandra - e first is that the injured party has to be placed in as good a
situation as if the contract has been per formed.[2] - the injured party is debarred from claiming any
part of damages arising out of his neglect.
 193. Lachia Shetty v Coffee Board-
194. Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd – switzerlan tour – not given what was promised – damges for distress,
lack of enjoymrnt
195. Melachrino v Nickoll - the plaintiffs had agreed to sell goods to the defendants, but repudiated the
contract before the due date for delivery; the defendants accepted the repudiation, but did not buy
other goods on the market. The market price of the goods was above the contract price at the time
of repudiation, but had fallen below the contract price by the due date for delivery. It was held that
the buyers were entitled only to nominal damages as they had not, in fact, suffered any loss as a
result of the breach of contract.
196. Millett v Van Heek & Co. -
197. Dunlop v Lambert – cargo of whiskey was lost and second shipment was sent and claimed - where
the party undertaking to consign undertakes to deliver at a particular place, and if he undertakes to
deliver at a particular place, the property, till it reaches that place, and is delivered according to the
contract, is at the risk of the party consigning;
198. Funnell v Aadams & Remer - The claimants alleged that the defendants, their solicitors had been
negligent in handling a commercial lease. That being accepted, the court considered the measure of
damages.
199. Frederick Thomas Kingsley v Secretary of State India – the plaintiff obtained licence to catch
elephant but he could not catch as many elephant as he could if he would have been provided with
the passport at righ time and no hindrance would be caused by forest officials – held – on first point
that he had licence and it was wrong on part of officials to delay his entry so dames would eb
awrded- also there was fire in the area – no damages for this as the officials didn’t caused this
200. Quinn v Burch Bros Ltd – q was a sub contractor to b and b had to provide what q asked but
when he asked for a ladder he didn’t provide q used another ladder which he knew was not in a
perfect condition – he suffered damages due to that and claim damges from b as he failed to supply
ladder which led to this- the injury was caused by his own voluntary act in using the trestle.
Accordingly B was not liable to pay damages for Q injury, for his damage was not a natural and
probable consequence of the breach of contract even if, as was in fact doubtful, it was a foreseeable
consequence of that breach. 201. Photo production v Securicor transport – guard set bonfire
which led to fire in whole premises and Since in present case, parties unequivocally, and in clear
express terms, laid the scope of exclusion clause implying it to be operative even when there was
any fundamental breach of contract, hence, exclusion clause must stand good in present case.
202. VL Narasu v PSV Iyer and Others – def owned a talkies and plaintiff made a fim and contracted
with talkies to show his film – a wall of talkies broke causing death of 3 people due to which talkies
had to be closed and renovated - the contract lapsed due to impossibility to perform – plaintiff
demanded damages for breach - The continued existence of the theatre id the fundamental basis
on which this agreement rests – in a contract it is implied that impossibility will lead to frustration –
no damages
203. Maharasthra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd v. Datar Switchgear - The
appellant entered into a contract with the respondent to supply some goods and deposited a certain
amount as security for due performance of the contract. It was stipulated that the amounts were to
stand forfeited in case the appellant neglected to perform his part of the contract.

Section 74
204. Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das -
205. Maula Bux v UOI - The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent to supply some
goods and deposited a certain amount as security for due performance of the contract. It was
stipulated that the amounts were to stand forfeited in case the appellant neglected to perform his part
of the contract. – def made default in supply – resp rescinded and forfeited the amount – forf of
earnest money not under 74 but forf of money which he has already paid to the party complaining of
a breach of contract, the undertaking is in the nature of a penalty and, s. 74 applied
206. M/s Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority and Another
207. Steel Authority of India Ltd v Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd
208. ONGC v Saw Pipes - Oil and Natural Gas / had placed an order on Saw Pipes for supply of
equipment for off shore exploration, to be procured to European manuf – delayed due to strike In
 Europe – time was essence of contract - ONGC granted extension of time, but it invoked the clause
for recovery of Liquidated Damages by withholding the amount from the payment to the supplier. –
ongc deducted amount from contract and saw said it was a breach – saw plead force
majeure( unforeseeable event took place) - as regards Liquidated Damages and penalties, the
primary conclusion of the court appears to be that Liquidated Damages should be regarded as
reasonable compensation, while penalties should not. Further, it also appears to have concluded in
case of penalty damages will have to be proved.
209. V Venkataramaiah Pillai and Another v PV Subramania Pillai -
210. Anand Construction Works v State of Bihar -

Anticipatory Breach & Mitigation

211. Ramgopal v Dhanji Jadhavji Bhatia – cont to use def mill by plaintiff and def to supply cotton
but before any cotton could be taken, the def repudiate the contract – sued for damages for profit
that it could have gained if the cotton would have been supplied. - but if the aggrieved party decides
to keep the contract alive and sues for damages when the time of performance of the contract
arrives, in that case there is no duty on part of the plaintiff to mitigate the damages and damages will
be accordingly awarded – no damages as he himself repudiated the breach
212. Albert Hochster v Edgar Frederick de la tour – plaintiff was a courier who was going on a 3
month tour with plaintiff – but he cancelled – plaintiff sue him for damages – soon after plaintiff
find another contract - concept of “anticipatory repudiation” - Defendant clearly repudiated his
agreement with the Plaintiff, and it is wasteful to require Plaintiff to wait and make preparation for
an event that will not occur.
213. White and Carter v McGregor – claimant supplied bins and advertise on that , the def sales
manager entered into a 3 yr adv contract stating that the money has to be paid in 3 installments and
if any install. Is made late , then price for 3 yrs. have to be paid at once, despite the def disapproval ,
the manager entered into it and failed to pay the installment and was showed with a notice to pay the
whole amt. - Where a party is in renunciatory breach of contract, the other party is not bound to
accept the breach and sue for damages, but may perform its own obligations under the contract and
claim what is due under the contract. A party is not bound to enforce its contractual rights in a
reasonable way. - If one party to a contract repudiates it in the sense of making it clear to the other
party that he refuses or will refuse to carry out his part of the contract, the other party, the innocent
party, has an option. He may accept that repudiation and sue for damages for breach of contract,
whether or not the time for performance has come; or he may if he chooses disregard or refuse to
accept it and then the contract remains in full effect.’ As
214. Nathulal v Phoolchand – nathulal sold phoolachand a factory and there was part payment – he
paid half and was given possession of land but he failed to pay the other half on due date and
nathulal rescinded the contract - for mesne profits from the date of delivery till the possession was
restored to him, alleging Phoolchand was a trespasser - It is clear that in the arrangement made by
Phoolchand, he had at all relevant times made necessary arrangement for paying the amount due, but
so long as Nathulal did not perform his part of the contract, Phoolchand could not be called upon to
pay the balance of the price. It must therefore be held that Phoolchand was at all relevant times
willing to carry put his part of the contract.
215. Chanakya and Company and Others v Kay Aar Decobuild Pvt Ltd - Appellant had to pay an
amount of Rs.25000 to the respondent. Appellant tried to payback the money through the bank draft
issued by Parishad Co-operative Bank, which subsequently went into liquidation. The money
therefore, could not be paid to the respondent. - If the bank has gone into liquidation, respondent
cannot be held responsible for the same, nor can it be assumed that the money stands paid to the
respondent. - If the bank has not honoured the drafts, the defendant can have remedy against the
bank, but they are liable to pay price of goods to the plaintiff.