MOOLJI JAITHA AND CO Vs. SETH KIRODIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 127 of 1952 on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal is the appellant before us and the suit was for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs case is that, on defendants enquiry, he offered to sell 660 tins of cocoanut oil at Rs. 33/- per tin Bilticut, that this offer was accepted by the defendant by his telegram dated 15-1-1952 and thus a binding contract came into existence between the parties. In confirming the acceptance the plaintiff had also asked for remittance of advance by telegram dated 16-1-1952. On 21-1-1952 the plaintiff again sent a telegram for despatch instructions and for remittance of advance. Instead of sending despatch instructions and advance, the defendant cancelled the contract by his telegram dated 22-1-1952. This telegram was received by the plaintiff on the next day, when he wired back to the effect that the defendant was not entitled to cancel the contract and that if he did not require the goods, the plaintiff would sell them at the prevailing market rate of Rs. 30-5-0 at the risk of the defendant. The defendant replied stating that the contract was cancelled and that he was not liable for any loss. The plaintiff thereafter waited for a reasonable time and sold the cocoanut oil on 30-1-1952 at the rate of Rs.27-5-0 per tin and he claimed the balance in price amounting to Rs. 3752-12-0 as damages consequent on the breach of contract committed by the defendant.

(2.) The defendant contended that the plaintiff never offered to sell coconut oil at Rs. 33 per tin and that the defendant did not accept such an offer by his telegram dated 15-1-1952 resulting in any enforceable contract as stated in the plaint. He further contended that the negotiations did not proceed beyond the stage of offer and counter offer and did not materialise into a binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the plaintiffs telegram dated 16-1-1952 was only a counter offer to the defendants telegram dated 15-1-1952 and that when the plaintiff did not accept the terms of the telegram dated 15-1-1952, the defendant revoked the same by his telegram dated 22-1-1952. As the defendant did not agree to give any advance, he did not remit the same. In the absence of a concluded contract, the defendant was entitled to revoke his offer and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. Regarding the quantum of damages the defendants contention was that the plaintiff was entitled to claim only the difference in price prevailing on 22-1-1952. There were other contentions also which are not material for the disposal of the appeal.

(3.) The lower court raised several issues; but we are concerned in the appeal only with issues (i), (ii) and (v). They are:-