HIRALAL AMBALAL Vs. GOPALJI KALLIANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not think it necessary to call upon the respondents.

(2.) This case is one in which the plaintiff s sued for damages for the breach of a contract on the ground that the defendants, to whom they had sold certain goods, had failed to take delivery. When the case came on for hearing there was put in-certain correspondence, and it was admitted that there were three contracts relating to these goods. The first was the sale by Mathuradas to the plaintiffs, the second was the sale by the plaintiffs to the defendants which is the contract for the breach of which the plaintiffs sue, and the third was the sale by the defendants back to Mathuradas, the original vendor. It was further admitted that these contracts related to precisely the same goods. Counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs in the trial Court, there said that if the Court thought that on the admitted facts there was only a claim for differences he did not wish to contest the case further; and the Court gave judgment according to the evidence.

(3.) The main point taken in appeal is that this case must be decided exclusively on a consideration of the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants and the Court had no right to take into account any later contract between the defendants and Mathuradas, or to take into account the effect such a contract might have on the dealings between the plaintiffs themselves and the defendants.