INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

BALFOUR V BALFOUR(1919)

The Defendant and his wife were enjoying their holiday in England. When
the defendant was due to return to Ceylon, where he was employed, and
his wife was advised, by reasons of her health, to remain in England. The
defendant agreed to send her an amount of £30 a month for the probable
expenses of maintenance. He did send the amount at the beginning, but
afterwards differences arose which resulted in their separation and the
allowance fell into arrears. The wife’s action to recover the arrears was
dismissed. This was not a contract because parties did not intend that they
shall be attended by legal consequences.

KRELL V HENRY(1903)

The defendant agreed to hire from the plaintiff a flat for June 26 and 27, on
which days it had been announced that the coronation procession would
pass along that place. A part of the rent was paid in advance. But the
procession having been cancelled owing to the King’s illness, the
defendant refused to pay the balance. It was held that the real object of the
contract was to have a view of the coronation ceremony, as agreed by both
the parties. The object of the contract was frustrated by non-happening of
the coronation and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the balance of
the rent.
 LALMAN SHUKLA V GAURI DATT(1913)

Defendant’s nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search

of the boy. When the servant had left, the defendant by hand bills offered to
pay RS 501 to anybody discovering the boy. The servant came to know of
this offer only when he had traced the missing child. He, however, brought
an action to recover the reward. But his action failed. A suit like this can
only be founded on a contract. In order to constitute a contract, there must
be an acceptance of an offer and there can be no acceptance unless there
is knowledge of the offer.

STARTUP V MACDONALD

The defendant bought of the plaintiff ten tons of linseed oil to be delivered
within the last 14 days of the month of March. The plaintiff tendered on the
last of the fourteen days at 9’O clock at night. The defendant refused to
accept owing to the lateness of the hour. He was held liable for the breach
as the jury found that, though the hour was unreasonable, yet there was
enough time for the defendant to have taken in and weighed the goods
before midnight. He should, therefore, have accepted the tender and “then
no doubt, the contract would have been literally performed.”
 SALE OF GOODS ACT

BALDRY V MARSHALL

“A” consulted “B” a car dealer and told him

that he wanted to purchase a car for touring
purposes, “A” suggested that a Buggati car
will be fit for the purpose .Relying upon the
statement, he bought the Buggati car .Later
on the car turned to be unfit for the purpose
of touring. The Court observed that the
suitability of the car for touring purpose was
ac condition because, it was so important
that the non-fulfillment defeated the very
purpose of purchasing the car. It was held
that A was entitled to return the car and get
back the price paid.
 ROWLAND V. DIVALL

“B” bought a second hand car from “S” a

car dealer. After few months the car was
taken away by the police as it was a stolen
one. The court observed that it was a
breach of condition as to title as “S” had no
right to sell the car. It was held that “B”
could recover full price from “S”.

VARLEY V. WHIPP

“W” bought a reaping machine which he

had never seen, “V” the seller described it
to have been new and used to cut only 50
to 60 acres. “W” found the machine to be
extremely old .It was held that “W” could
return the machine as it did not answer to
the description.
NICHOLSON AND VENN V. SMITH
MARRIOT

In an auction sale of a set of Napkins and

table clothes, these were described as
dating from the seventh century; the buyer
bought the set after seeing it. Subsequently
it was found that the set was not of the
seventh century but of the eighteenth
century, it was held that he could reject the
goods.

MOORE & CO. V. LANDAUVER & CO.

“M” sold to “L” 300 TINS OF Australian

Apple packed in cases containing 30 tins.
“M” tendered a substantial portion in case
containing 24 tins. It was held that “L” could
reject all the tins as the goods were not
packed according to the description given in
the contract as the method in which the fruit
was packed was an essential part of the
description.