BOUTHU NAGABHUSHANAM & CO. Vs. SAITH KANHAIYALAL BHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 925-9-9 inclusive of interest, claimed by way of damages for the breach of contract on the part of the defendant in not taking delivery of the goods sent to him under the contract of sale entered into between the parties. The defendant had pleaded that he was not guilty of breach of contract and at any rate he was not liable to pay any damages as no loss in fact had resulted to the plaintiff from the transaction. He, at the last stage raised a further question of jurisdiction of the court trying the suit. The learned judge who has decided the case on merits seems to have found that he had no jurisdiction. If this finding is correct, I need not go into any other question. But in my opinion this finding is erroneous having regard to the very provisions of Sec. 4 Contract Act on which reliance has been placed. The acceptance as against the defendant was complete when the plaintiff had sent the acceptance by way of post from his place. Acceptance concludes the contract and vinculum juris binds the parties.

(2.) The place of suit in law can be where the contract is made. The suit has therefore rightly been instituted in the court below and the learned trial Judge was competent to hear the same. The trial Judge has considered and decided the case against the defendant on merits. He no doubt found that the defendant was guilty of breach of contract but in view of the evidence that was adduced, he came to the conclusion that having regard to the market price then; prevailing at Sagar, there can be no question that the plaintiff could have incurred or did incur any loss.

(3.) The learned counsel, has challenged the correctness of this finding and has relied on the provisions of Sec. 55 (i). He argues that the plaintiff's suit in essence is a suit for recovery of the price of the goods sold. But that does not appear to be correct having regard to the clear averments in the plaint and the nature of the suit. Clearly it is a case for damages for breach of contract which is to be governed by the provisions of Sec. 56 of the Sales of Goods Act and also Sec. 73 of the Contract Act. The latter section reads thus :