Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Contract Law-I

    Uploaded by

    atiqbinumer
    Case Brief (PLD 1967 Karachi 318)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Contract Law-I

    Uploaded by

    atiqbinumer
    0 views3 pages
    Case Brief (PLD 1967 Karachi 318)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case Brief (PLD 1967 Karachi 318)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    0 views3 pages

    Contract Law-I

    Uploaded by

    atiqbinumer
    Case Brief (PLD 1967 Karachi 318)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Name: Atiq Ur Rehman

    Faculty of Shariah and Law-F19


    Case Citation:
    PLD 1967 Karachi 318
    Messrs Hafiz Abdul Aziz Yusufani & Co. (Plaintiff)
    versus Burma Oil Mills LTD (Defendant).
    Facts:
    This case is about a contract between Plaintiff (Sellers) & Defendant (Buyers) and the
    subsequent suits filed by both parties. The sellers in suit claimed damages, whereas the buyers
    in their suit plead for return of the advance money.
    A contract was signed between sellers and buyers in which the sellers had to deliver 10,000
    maunds of cottonseed to the buyer at the rate of Rs. 15/14 per maund excluding bardanas
    which were to be provided by the buyers at the sellers’ call. The delivery was to be started from
    October 1st, 1958 until full delivery. The buyers paid Rs. 5000/- in advance.
    The sellers wrote three letters one after another from September 10 th-October 28th to buyers to
    send bardanas and their representative to collect the cottonseed. But there was no reply from
    buyers. In the meantime, market activity came to standstill due to Martial Law. The buyers
    wrote the first letter to sellers on November 27 th to deliver the cottonseed at rate of Rs. 12-4-0
    per maund according to their assessment in light of Martial Law Regulations (MLR) in 48 hours,
    otherwise the breach would be on sellers’ part.
    Both accused each other for the breach of contract. At December 2 nd, the sellers filed a suit in
    Sindh High Court after their suit was dismissed in District Courts to forfeit the advance money
    of Rs. 5000/- and the recovery of damages of Rs. 36,250. The buyers filed a suit in District
    Courts to recover advance money alleging sellers for the breach of contract.

    Procedural History:
    This case was decided by the Sindh High Court. Before that, a suit was filed in District Courts by
    the sellers to claim damages which was dismissed. A suit was also filed by the buyers in District
    Courts which was referred to Sindh High Court and was consolidated with the suit filed by
    sellers.

    Issues:
    2
    Issue framed in the suits were following:
    1. Do Martial Law Regulations apply on the performance of contract?
    2. Who committed the breach of contract?
    3. Who is entitled to relief and on to what extent?

    Rules:
    1. Section 36 & 73, time of essence of contract in sale of goods, of the Contract Act, 1872.
    2. Section 55, Seller not entitled unilaterally to keep alive the broken contract and can
    cancel the contract in case of breach of contract.
    3. No. 42 of the Martial Law Regulations, 1958.

    Analysis:
    The court analyzed that the MLR No.42 and Section 36 of the Contract Act did not apply in this
    contract because the performance of the contract was to start from October 1 st, 1958 but MLR
    were enacted on November 1st, 1958 and the contract was not affected by these regulations.
    Furthermore, the court contended that the breach of the contract was by the buyers according
    to section 55 and of the Contract Act because they did not reply and sent bardanas before the
    due date, i.e. October 1st.
    While the buyers did breach of contract, the sellers did not cancel the contract after October 1 st
    which they could according to section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872 extended time by
    themselves to October 28th to recover damages and the buyers were not consulted. So it is a
    well settled law that the time of performance of contract can only be extended by the
    agreement of both parties. One party cannot delay the performance to claim damages at a
    higher market rate in the light of section 73 of the Contract Act.
    In addition to this, the sellers sold the cottonseed at a higher market rate i.e. Rs. 18 per maund
    than the contract rate of Rs. 15/14 per maund in the month of October.

    Conclusion:
    Both the suits were dismissed. Neither the sellers could claim for damages because MLR did not
    apply and they sell the cottonseed at a higher market value than contract value nor the sellers
    were given advance money due to breach of contract on their part.

    You might also like