PREMJI VIRJI Vs. SIR EDWARD ELIAS SASSOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are Mill Agents and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement (Ext. A) with them on April 30, 1915, under which in consideration of procuring the sale of all goods manufactured in the two mills of the defendants and financing the sales, the plaintiffs were entitled to their commission specified in the agreement. Subsequently, certain alterations took place in the constitution and name of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, which are not however material for the purpose of this suit. On April 30, 1919, the agency terminated. The plaintiffs sue on an amount for Rs. 52,940-9-0 specified in the plaint as being due to them from the defendants under the agreement.

(2.) This amount may, for clarity's sake, be divided into five kinds: first, interest alleged by the defendants to be due to them in the first place from the dealers who purchased the goods through plaintiffs and ultimately from the plaintiffs themselves and wrongly debited to the plaintiffs. This item of interest can be divided into three kinds according to the objections of the plaintiffs specified in para. 10 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs while interest from dealers was really due only from the due date of delivery in the original agreement, the defendants have wrongly debited the amounts from earlier dates, such as, firstly, from the date in the agreement although the defendants had failed to manufacture the goods and they were not ready for delivery ; secondly, although the goods were rejected by the dealers purchasers for quality, the defendants accepted the objection and manufactured fresh goods and gave delivery considerably later ; and, thirdly, even when the due date was extended by the defendants to suit their own convenience.

(3.) The fourth item comprising nearly half the total claim specified in para. 14 of the plaint is claimed as commission either under Clause 24 of the agreement or alternatively quantum mauriti in respect of contracts which were cancelled without delivery of the goods on payment of compensation to the defendants by the dealers purchasers originally concerned.