HARICHAND AND CO Vs. GOSHO KABUSHIKI KAISHA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case and the correspondence between the parties, observed:--] At the trial it was not disputed that the goods tendered to the defendants were contract goods. But it was contended that owing to the bales being described by the figure 10 instead of the figure 9/5 mentioned in the contract, the defendants were not bound to accept the goods. This contention was overruled by the learned Judge in the Court below, and it is now admitted that there was a breach of the contract by the defendants. The Judge held that the date of this breach was April 5, 1921, and though in the judgment he refers to the defendants final repudiation of May 17, it is clear that this does not affect the previous finding that there was a breach on April 5. We agree there was a clear breach on April 5, 1921, and that this was not affected by the subsequent negotiations which broke down on May 17.

(2.) The only other point in dispute was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the loss resulting from the resale on May 25 as damages, and on this point the Judge held that, though Clause 15 says the plaintiffs can sell at, any time, this must be taken to mean at any reasonable time. He also held that the plaintiffs were not unreasonable in waiting till May 17 before taking steps to sell the goods, and that the actual sale on May 25 was within a reasonable time of the defendants final repudiation of May 17. Accordingly he decreed the plaintiffs claim.

(3.) The defendants appeal on the ground that the lower Court erred in awarding damages on this basis, and that it should have held that the correct measure of the plaintiffs damages was the price of the goods ruling on April 6, 1921.