Name : Rukhsar Mistry

Class: Sybcom
Division: 2
Roll no: SC 206
Contact no: 9867562358
Topic: Explain the concept of Breach of contract with the help of
one case study
Breach of contract
A breach of contract is a violation of any of the agreed-upon terms and
conditions of a binding contract.
The breach could be anything from a late payment to a more serious
violation, such as the failure to deliver a promise.
A breach of contract occurs when two or more people enter into an
agreement, and at least one party does not fulfill their part of the contract by
failing to meet the contract terms without a legal excuse.

A breach of contract occurs:

When one party in a binding agreement fails to deliver according to the terms
of the agreement. A breach of contract can happen in both a written and an
oral contract. The parties involved in a breach of contract may resolve the
issue among themselves, or in a court of law.
Types of breach of contract:
Anticipatory breach
An anticipatory breach of contract occurs when the promisor refuses
altogether to perform his promise and signifies his unwillingness even before
the time for performance has arrived.
For example:
A agrees to sell B crops within a due date, however before the due date he
gives a written application to B saying “I'll not deliver the crops as promised”.
Actual breach
An actual breach of contract occurs when one person refuses to fulfill his or
her part of the obligations on the due date.
For example:
Rahul agrees to sell Tom his 50 bags of cotton to him on 20th July, 2019.
however on the scheduled day he fails to deliver the same.
Reason for selecting the relevant topic
• I have selected this topic as I find it very interesting and informative at the
same time.
• It helps us to understand different types of contract, issues, judgments,
facts in a contract.
• It gives a clear vision for studying a particular case .
 CASE STUDY
Name of the case study
V.K. Kumaraswami Chettiar vs P.A.S.V. Karuppuswami Mooppanar on 28
March, 1952

Name of the parties

 V.K. Kumaraswami Chettiar
 P.A.S.V. Karuppuswami Mooppanar
Facts of the case
Both the parties are prominent merchants in Mathurai doing business in yarn.
On 13-5-1943 they entered into an agreement, Ex. P. 1. under which the
appellants agreed to sell and deliver ten bales of yarn to the respondent in
August 1943
The seller had to deliver 10 bales of yarn anytime between 1st and 31st of
August , 1943 at his discretion. Payment was to be made before receiving
delivery.
On 2-8-1943, goods were sent and notice was received by buyer who did not
respond to it.
On 30-8-1943, respondents demanded delivery and offered to pay the ceiling
price fixed by the government on 20-8-1943 to which the sellers refused.
Government prices were applicable for contracts existing after 15-8-1943. To
determine who had committed the breach, Court had to find whether the
contract was existing on 15-8-1943.
Issue of the case
On 3-6-1943 there was another agreement between the parties under which
the respondent agreed to sell and deliver to the appellants five bales in July
1943.
On 2-8-1943 the appellants gave notice to the respondent that ten bales of
yarn were ready, that he might pay for and take delivery of them in
accordance with the contract dated 13-5-1943, Ex. P. 3. The respondent
neither replied to this notice nor did he make any attempt to pay for the
goods and take delivery.
Analysis of the decision of the case
These are appeals preferred under the Letters Patent against the judgment of
Satyanarayana Rao J., in S. A. Nos. 464 and 465 of 1946 whereby he reversed
the judgment of the District Judge of Mathurai in A. S. Nos. 294 and 295 of
1944 which in turn had reversed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of
Mathurai in O. S. No. 100 of 1943 and No. 82 of 1943. The appellants in this
Court were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 100 of 1943, Sub-Court, Mathurai and
the suit was for damages for non-acceptance of goods under a contract dated
13-5-1943. The defendant in this suit filed O. S No. 82 of 1943 in the Sub-
Court, at Mathurai, against the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 100 of 1943 claiming
damages for non-acceptance of goods under contract dated 3-6-1943. Both
the suits were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and so
were the appeals in the District Court and in this Court.
Conclusion
In the result both the Defences raised by the respondent namely that there
was no proper tender of goods on 2-8-1943 and that the contract was kept
alive on 15-8-1943 must be overruled.
The appellant will, therefore, be entitled to damages for breach of the
contract.
Bibliography
https://indiankanoon.org