ISHAQ ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 955/- as damages for breach of contract after deducting a sum it Rs. 51,000/- already paid by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent carries on the business of wholesale dealers in potatoes at Fatehgarh, in Uttar Pradesh, and the defendants-appellants carry on the business of selling potatoes it Khandwa in Madhya Pradesh. The defendant-appellant No. 2 sent the defendant-appellant No. 1 to the plaintiff at Fatehgarh with a letter of introduction. After this letter had been handed over to the plaintiff-respondent by the defendant-appellant No. 1 at Fatehgarh, the defendant-appellant No. 1 placed an order on the 13th December, 1948, for despatch of a wagon of potatoes and deposited Rs. 500/- with the plaintiff. On the 1st of January 1949, the plaintiff-respondent despatched a wagon of potatoes to defendant No. 1 and forwarded the invoice and railway receipt to him through the Imperial Bank. The defendant-appellant No. 1 refused to take delivery of the goods. On getting information of this, the plaintiff sent his munim, Babu Ram, to Khandwa where the goods were lying. The plaintiffs munim and agent contacted the defendant-appellant No. 1 and discussed the matter, and then he tried to sell the goods to other persons, but he was not able to get an offer higher than the offer of the defendant-appellant No. 1 which was Rs. 5100/- upon certain conditions. In fact, the next highest offer was Rs. 4200/- only. The agent and munim, thereupon, accented the offer of defendant-appellant No. 1 together with the conditions in it, and gave a writing that the payment was a full settlement of the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant-appellant No. 1. This money was received by the plaintiff-respondent and was duly entered in the respondents account-books as money received from the defendant-appellant No. 1 Babu Ram, the agent and munim of the plaintiff-respondent, who has not been produced, must have informed the plaintiff-respondent that he had settled the matter with the defendant-appellant No. 1 at Rs. 5100/- and accepted the money in full satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. The total claim of the plaintiff-respondent amounted to Rs. 6,377/3/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,100/- was deducted as it was accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. The writing given by the plaintiff-respondent also indicated that, out of the sum of Rs. 500/- already deposited with the plaintiff-respondent, a sum of Rs. 430/- was adjusted towards price of potatoes and Rs. 70/- towards expenses. The result was that, for a total payment of Rs. 5,600/-, the defendant-appellant obtained the potatoes and a release from any obligation to pay anything more if the writing given by the agent of the plaintiff-respondent is treated as binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) IT has been argued before me that the courts below have erred in deciding this question by overlooking S. 36(2) Sale of Goods Act and the nature of the goods consigned of which prices fluctuate rapidly. I do not propose to decide this question as this appeal can be disposed of on other grounds.