MADHORAM HURDEODASS Vs. GCSETT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants Madhoram Hurdeo Dass against the decision of Chaudhuri, J., whereby he gave judgment for the plaintiffs for Rs. 2,500 as damages for breach of contract and costs.

(2.) The contract was contained in a letter written by the defendants to the plaintiff, and dated 2nd February 1914, as follows: Calcutta, 2nd February 1914.Messes. G.C. Sett & B.R. Sett, We beg to enter as having sold you through Broker P.N. Mookerjee 150 tons Basic Steel bars with usual 10 per cent. 2nd class extras at ? 5-7-6 per ton C.I.F. i.e., free Hooghly. Shipment in three monthly lots commencing June, i.e., June, July, August 1914. Delivery to be completed within three days from the date of the landing of the goods. Terms 45 days credit from the date of the delivery of the goods, failing which due date will be calculated from the due date of the delivery, i.e., three days of the landing of the goods. This sale is made on the basis of the existing terms and conditions in the contracts for this class of goods as are current in the market. Interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum to be charged on any money unpaid after the due date and rebate for payments before the due date will be allowed at the same rates. You have the option to have the goods weighed so as to arrive at the actual weighment and in that case you shall have to notify us, so that we may make necessary arrangements to have our man present. But in any case, claim, for weighment will not be entertained, if made alter three days after the arrival of the goods in your godowns from the jetty, and the invoice weight shall be accepted by you as the correct one. Pteace confirm. Yours faithfullyMauhoram Huedeodass.

(3.) The July consignment was shipped by the Belgo-Asiatic Trading Company, from whom the defendants had bought the goods, on the 2nd July 1914 at Antwerp on board the ss. ? Steinturn" which was a German vessel. Some of the goods were made in Belgium, others were made in Germany as appears from the invoices in respect of the goods. Neither the Bill of Lading nor the Policy of Insurance was produced in Court, but it was assumed for the purpose of the appeal by both sides that the Bill of Lading was made out in the name of the defendants and that the contingency which happened, viz., the capture and condemnation of the ship and the consequent expenses were not covered by the Policy of Insurance.