Contact cases

1. Topic : Implied Contract

Upton Rural District Council Vs Powell

Facts: A fire broke out in Powells farm. He called upon the fire Upton brigade to put out the
fire which the latter did. Now the problem is that Powells farm did not come under the
service zone of the fire station he called although he believed it to be so. Not being in the
service zone of the department, he was charged for the services of the Upton Fire
Department.

Judgment: It was held that he(Powell) was liable to pay for the services rendered as the
services were rendered by Upton Fire Brigade on an implied contract to pay.

2. Topic : Intention to create legal relationship

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

Facts: Lalman Shukla was the servant of Gauri Dutt. The nephew of Gauri Dutt went missing
and Lalman Shukla was sent to search for him with expenses. Gauri Dutt later announced
that whoever found his nephew would receive a reward. Lalman Shukla was unaware of
this when he located the missing nephew and brought him back. He then came to know of
the reward and demanded the same.

Judgment: It was held that Lalman Shukla was not entitled to the reward as there was no
contract. This was because there was no knowledge of proposal and an action without
knowledge of proposal cannot be held as acceptance.

3. Topic : Acceptance of offer

Adams v Lindsell

Facts: The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September,
the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and
requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the
plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the
same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile, on 8 September, the
defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they had expected, sold the
wool to someone else

Argument: The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the
answer was actually received, and until then they were free to sell the wool to another
buyer

1
Judgment: The acceptance did not arrive in course of post strictly speaking (all parties
understood in course of post to refer to 7 September). But because the delay was the
default of the defendant it was taken that the acceptance did arrive in course of post

Furthermost, it was held that, it must be considered that the offerors were making the offer
to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post. Then when the Offeree
has placed his acceptance in the post there is a fictional meeting of minds, which concludes
the offer and gives effect to the acceptance.

4. Topic : Communication of acceptance

Powell v Lee

Facts: Powell applied for a job as headmaster and the school managers decided to appoint
him. One of them, acting without authority, told Powell he had been accepted. Later the
managers decided to appoint someone else. Then Powell brought an action alleging that by
breach of a contract to employ him he had suffered damages in loss of salary.

Judgment: The county court judge held that there was no contract as there had been no
authorized communication of intention to contract on the part of the body, that is, the
managers, alleged to be a party to the contract. This decision was upheld by the King's
Bench Division

5. Topic : Silence is not acceptance

Felthouse v Bindley

Facts: Paul Felthouse was a builder who lived in London. He wanted to buy the horse Sizing
Europe off his nephew, John Felthouse. After a letter from the nephew about a previous
discussion in buying the horse, the uncle replied saying,
If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at 30 and 15s.
The nephew did not reply. He was busy at auctions on his farm in Tamworth. He told the
man running the auctions, William Bindley, not to sell the horse. But by accident, Bindley
did. Uncle Felthouse then sued Bindley in the tort of conversion using someone elses
property inconsistently with their rights. But for the Uncle to show the horse was his
property, he had to show there was a valid contract.
Arguments: Bindley argued there was not, since the nephew had never communicated his
acceptance of the uncle's offer.
Judgment: The court ruled that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as there was
no acceptance of the contract. Acceptance must be communicated clearly and cannot be
imposed due to silence of one of the parties. The uncle had no right to impose a sale

2
through silence whereby the contract would only fail by repudiation. Though the nephew
expressed interest in completing the sale there was no communication of that intention.

This case brought in the rule silence cannot amount to acceptance

6. Topic : Invitation to offer

Harris v. Nickerson

Facts: Defendant put up advertisement that he would hold an auction for sale of certain
goods over a period of 3 days. The plaintiff travelled a distance expending his own money
and also his time. However on the third day, the Defendant called off the auction suddenly
and without notice. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

Judgment: First court held in favor of p/f. Went on appeal. Held that there was no contract
between the two as the advertisement was only a statement of intent not an offer.

7. Topic : Invitation to offer

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist [South] Ltd.

Facts: Boots started a new system where the drugs/meds where placed on shelves and a
customer would pick the ones he wanted to buy and take them to the till where a
supervising pharmacist would finish the transaction. The society objected to this as it was
against some section of the law to buy certain poisons without the assent of pharmacist.

Judgment: It was held that the act of displaying of meds was merely an invitation to treat
and not an offer and that the offer was made by the customer when he went to the till
saying he wanted to buy the meds.

8. Topic

Badri Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh & ANR.

Facts: The appellant entered into a contract in respect of certain forests and became
entitled to cut teak trees with some specifications. After a legislation vesting the estate in
the State, the appellant was prohibited from cutting timber in exercise of his rights under
the contract. On Feb, 1, the State said that the appellants claim to cut trees would be
considered only if he gave up his claim to a sum of Rs. 17,000 which he had already paid
under the contract and was willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 17,000 to the state. On
February 5, 1955, the appellant expressed his willingness to pay the additional sum but
reserved his right to claim a refund of the first sum. The State rejected the appellants right
to cut trees. The appellant then filed a Suit claiming specific performance of the contract.

3
Arguments (Appellant):
1. The forest and trees did not vest in the State under the Act
2. Even if they vested, the standing timber, having been sold to the appellant, did .not
vest in the State

JUDGMENT: The judgment favoured the state and regarding the various contention made
by the appellant, the court gave the following responses favoured the State
1. The forest and trees vested in the State under the Act.
2. Under the contract A had not become the owner of the trees as goods. The property
in the timber could pass to A only when the trees are felled, but before they were
felled, the trees had vested in the State.

RATIO:
Person shall exercise his proprietary right in property in compliance with relevant provisions
of law.
9. Topic : Difference between an offer and invitation to offer/trade

Harvey vs Facey

Facts: Facey was in negotiations with the Mayor and Council of Kingston regarding the sale
of his store. Harvey sent Facey a telegram stating: Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen?
Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid. On the same day, Facey sent Harvey a reply by
telegram stating: Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen 900. Harvey sent Facey another
telegram agreeing to purchase the property at the asking price. Facey refused to sell and
Harvey sued for specific performance and an injunction to prevent Kingston from taking
the property. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that an enforceable contract had not
been formed and Harvey appealed. The Supreme Court of Jamaica reversed and Facey
appealed.

Issue: Is a statement of the minimum price at which a seller would sell an offer?

Judgment: It was held that a mere statement of the minimum selling price is an invitation to
treat and not an offer to sell.
The court held that by replying to Harveys question regarding the lowest price of the
property, Facey did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his
willingness to sell. The court held that Harvey had made an invitation to trade and not an
offer.

Disposition: Reversed, judgment of trial court restored.

4
 10. Topic : General offers
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (General offers)

Facts: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. manufactured and sold The Carbolic Smoke Ball. The
company placed ads in various newspapers offering a reward of 100 pounds to any person
who used the smoke ball three times per day as directed and contracted influenza, colds, or
any other disease. After seeing the ad Carlill purchased a ball and used it as directed. Carlill
contracted influenza and made a claim for the reward. Carbolic Smoke Ball refused to pay
and Carlill sued for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment for 100 pounds was
entered for Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball appealed. The company, in order to show its
commitment to this advertisement, also placed a thousand pounds in the bank.

Judgment: In this case, the court of Appeal held that when a certain advertisement contains
certain terms in order to get a particular reward, then it is a binding unilateral offer that
could be accepted by anyone who performs its terms.

11. Topic : Intention to create legal relationship

Merritt v. Merritt

Facts: Mr Merritt and Mrs Merritt jointly owned a house. Mr Merritt left to live with
another woman and made a signed agreement with Mrs Merritt that he would pay her
GBP40 a month and would transfer the house to her if she kept up the mortgage payments.
Mrs Merritt kept up the payments but when the mortgage was paid off Mr Merritt refused
to transfer the property.

Judgment: It was held that Mr Merritt would have to transfer the property to Mrs Merritt as
there was valid contract between the two. Although this case was between a Husband and
wife the court took into consideration the fact that they were estranged at the point of time
at which the agreement was made. Hence the court held that there was intention to create
legal relationship.

12. Topic : Intention to create legal relationship

Balfour v. Balfour

Facts: Mr and Mrs Balfour, who were living in Ceylon, travelled to England. Mrs Balfour had
arthritis and on doctors advice had to stay back. Mr Balfour promised to pay her GBP30
per month until she came back. They drifted apart and so Mrs Balfour -sued him, to keep up
the payments. She obtained a decree and an order. Went to Court of Appeal.

5
Judgment: The court held that there was no contract here as the agreement had been made
when the two were still husband and wife and in the words of Atkin LJ there was no
intention to effect legal relations.

13. Topic : At the desire of the promisor

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo

Facts: Baldeo expending his money had built a market at the desire of the collector of the
town. Durga Prasad moved into the market and, as Baldeo has spent his money in building
the market, promised to pay him a commission from articles sold. Durga Prasad however
failed to pay the promised amount and Baldeo brought action against him.

Judgment: It was held that the agreement was void for want of consideration. It was
observed that the market had not been built at the desire of the promisor (Durga Prasad)
and so consideration was not valid.

14. Topic : Promissory Estopple

Pournami Oil Mills, Etc vs State of Kerala & Anr

Facts: The state government, passed an order giving certain tax exemptions to firms which
set up their plants in the state. Based on the belief of getting tax exemption, the plaintiff set
up his factory. After setting up the factory, the state refused to give any sort of tax
exemption stating that it was merely a promise and not a valid offer.

Judgment: The Courts held the state liable and directed them to provide certain tax
exemptions as it was the main reason why the plaintiff set up the factory. The courts, in this
case held that the state is bound by the promises it makes.

15. Topic : Inability to Restore Goods is a limit to Recession of Contract

Wallis, Sons & Wells v. Pratt & Haynes

Facts: Seeds were delivered that were indistinguishable from the seeds that were
purchased but were inferior in quality. Sued for misrepresentation.

Judgment: It was admitted that the contract could not be rescinded as the seeds had
already been re-sold by the plaintiff and hence could not be returned to the vendor.

6
 16. Topic : Communication of notice

Henderson V Stevenson

Facts: On the back of a steamer ticket, there was a condition excluding liability for the loss
of luggage. There was nothing on the front of the ticket indicating the existence of any such
condition due to which Stevensons attention was not drawn to the conditions on the back
of the ticket. The steamer sank and with it, Stevenson lost his luggage and raised an action
against his lost baggage

Judgment: The court held that the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract
as the notice of the clause was not adequate therefore it was not included in the contract.

17. Topic: Acceptance by Conduct

LIC v Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba

Facts: Insurer (company) had received the proposal form along with the first premium and
it was still awaiting acceptance when the proposer (person) died.

Verdict: No liability on the company to pay arose

Ratio: It was immaterial that the groundwork for acceptance was under preparation and
the agent had assured that the proposal would be accepted. Acceptance is complete only
when communicated to the offeror.

18. Topic: Absolute and Unqualified Acceptance: Counter Proposals

Hyde v Wrench

Facts: An offer to sell a farm for 1000 pounds was rejected by the plaintiff who offered 950
for it. This was turned down by the offeror and then the plaintiff agreed to pay 1000.

Verdict: Defendant not bound by any such acceptance. If it had been at once
unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract,
instead of that, the plaintiff made an offer of his own to purchase the property and thereby
rejected the offer previously made by the defendant. Not competent for him to revive the
proposal of defendant by rendering acceptance of it. Therefore, no obligation of any sort
exists between the parties.

Ratio: Acceptance has to be absolute and unconditional

7
19. Topic: From Promisee or any other person

Chinnaya v. Ramaya (1882)

Facts: An old lady, made over certain landed property to her daughter by way of gift deed.
By terms of the registered deed, it was stipulated that an annuity was to be paid to the
sister of the old woman. The annuity was not paid and Chinnaya sued to recover it.

Judgement: It was held that the defense of no consideration on the part of Chinnaya

was not valid as the consideration came from any other person, i.e. , Mother of Ramaya.

20. Topic: Privity to Contract

Tweddle v. Atkinson

Facts: William Tweddle was engaged to a Miss Guy. Will Tweddles father entered into an
agreement with Miss Guys father to pay Will Tweddle GBP200 if Miss Guys father paid him
GBP100. However Miss Guys father subsequently died and his estate would not pay. Will
Tweddle sued the estate, namely the executor (Mr Atkinson) for the GBP200.

Judgement: His suit was not successful as it was held no stranger to the consideration can
take advantage of a contract, although made for his benefit. No legal entitlement is
conferred on third parties to an agreement. Third parties to a contract do not derive any
rights from that agreement nor are they subject to any burdens imposed by it.

21. Topic: Exceptions to Consideration (Natural Love and Affection)

Rajlukhy Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee

Facts: The husband promised to pay his wife a monthly fixed sum of money for her
separate residence and maintenance. The agreement was contained in a registered
document which also mentioned certain quarrels and disagreements between the two.

Judgement: The Calcutta HC held that the agreement was not covered by the Natural Love
and Affection exception as there could be found no trace of love and affection between two
people whose quarrels had forced them to separate.

8
22. Topic: Performance of existing duties: Pre-existing Contract with third party

Case Name: Gopal Co Ltd v Hazarilal Co (Firm Gopal Co Ltd v Firm Hazarilal Co, as per new
edition of Avtar Singh)

Facts: The plaintiff was under a contract to purchase some bales of cotton from a mill but
refused to fulfill a substantial part of his contact as the prices of cotton had fallen down.
Defendants, who were the sole selling agents of the mill and who had guaranteed the
performance of the contract, requested the plaintiff to take the whole of the quota of bales
fixed for delivery in the first month and promised that they would buy from the plaintiff a
part of such bales at the contract price or pay him Rs. 25,000 at his option. Plaintiff
complied with their request and elected to take Rs. 25,000.

Arguments: Defendant contended that their promise was void for want of consideration as
the plaintiff was already bound to take the cotton.

Verdict: Second agreement brings into existence a new contract between different parties
and therefore a promise to do a thing which the promise is already bound to do under a
contract with a third party can be good consideration to support a contract.

23. Topic: Capacity to Contract (Liability for Necessaries S 68: Claim for necessaries)

Case Name: Ryder v Woombwell

Facts: A minor was supplied a pair of jeweled solitaires and an antique goblet.

Verdict: Burden lies upon the supplier to prove that the ornamental thing is specially
necessary for the minor. Minor not liable as the plaintiff could not prove that the articles
were specially necessary for the minor.

All such articles as are purely ornamental are to be rejected as they cannot be requisite for
anyone. Possibly there may be exceptional cases in which things purely ornamental may be
necessary.

24. Topic: Minors Agreement (Nature)

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh

Facts:A minor executed a mortgage of Rs. 20,000 and received Rs. 8,000 as advance. The
mortgagee filed a suit for recovery of mortgage money and for sale of property in case of
default.

9
Judgement: The Privy Council held that an agreement involving a minor was void ab initio
and so there could be no recovery of money by the mortgagee.

25. Topic: Ratification of Minor Agreement

Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Ahir

Facts: A minor borrowed a sum of money by executing a promissory note, and on attaining
majority executed a second bond based on the original loan. A suit was filed based on the
second bond.

Judgement: The court held that the second bond was not maintainable as it was without
consideration as an agreement by minor could not be ratified.

26. Topic: Minors Agreement (Nature)

Leslie v. Sheill

Facts: A minor obtained a loan from moneylender by misrepresenting his age. The
moneylender sued for compensation.

Judgement: It was held that the moneylender would not be able to recover the money as
the money was not traceable. The court laid down the principle that the Doctrine of
Restitution would apply against minors only with regards to traceable objects.

27. Topic: Doctrine of Restitution (Minor compellable to restore)

Name: Khan Gul v Lakha Singh

Facts: The defendant while still a minor by fraudulently concealing his age, contracted to
sell a plot of land to the plaintiff. He received the consideration of Rs 17,500 and then
refused to perform his part of the bargain. Plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession or
refund of consideration.

Verdict: Refund of the consideration

Reasoning: There was no question of specific enforcement, the contract being wholly void.
The question was Can a minor who has entered into an contract by false representation
refuse to perform the contract and at the same time retain the benefit he may have
received thereform? Principle of restitution as explained in Leslie v. Sheill couldnt be of

10
any help unless it was extended in India to cover cases of money also. CJ: No real
difference between restoring the property and refunding the money, except that the
property can be identified but cash cant be traced. All contracts made by infants in India
are void while there is no such general rule in England. There should therefore be a greater
scope in India than in England for the applicability of the equitable doctrine of restitution.
The doctrine rests upon the salutary principles that an infant cannot be allowed by a court
of equity to take advantage of his own fraud. Accordingly refund of consideration was
ordered

28. Topic: Capacity to Contract (Liability for Necessaries S 68: Claim for necessaries)

Case Name: Kedar Nath v Ajudhia Prasad

Facts and Verdict: Money advanced to save a minors estate from execution sale was held to
be necessary. Where a minor is involved in a litigation threatening his property, expenses
reasonably incurred on his defence may be recovered from his estate.

29. Topic: Quasi-Contract (Necessaries)

Nash v. Inman

Facts: Nash supplied 11 fancy waistcoats to Inman an undergrad student in Cambridge who
was a minor. He sued for payment of these claiming they were a necessary to the student.
The student was sufficiently supplied with clothes by his father when he bought the
waistcoats.

Judgement: The court held in favour of Inman, stating that in this case the waistcoats did
not constitute a necessity as the student was already sufficiently provided with clothes.
Additionally they also held that onus of proving necessity laid on the plaintiff.

30. Topic: Coercion (Threat to Suicide is Coercion)

Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham Seshamma

Facts: The husband threatened to commit suicide unless his wife and son transferred
certain property which was theirs to his brother.

Judgement: The court held that although threat to commit suicide was not forbidden by the
IPC it was still an act of coercion.

11
31. Topic: Ability to Dominate Will of Other

Wajid Khan v. Raja Ewaz Ali khan

Facts: An old and illiterate woman, incapable of any business, conferred on her confidential
managing agent, without any valuable consideration, an important pecuniary benefit under
the guise of a trust.

Judgement: The Lordships all said the all the facts of the case go to show that there was
active undue influence.

32. Topic: Fraud Assertion of facts without belief of their truth

Derry v. Peek

Facts: A companys prospectus contained a representation that the company had been
authorised by a special Act of Parliament to run trams by steam or mechanical power. The
authority to use steam was, in fact, subject to approval of Board of Trade, but no mention
was made of this in the prospectus. The Board refused consent and consequently the
company became bankrupt. The plaintiff who had shares in the company sued for fraud.

Judgement: The court found the company not liable as they honestly believed that once the
Parliament had authorised use of steam, so would the Board.

33. Topic: Damages for Breach of Contract

Case Name: A.G v Blake

Facts: Blake was a former member of Intelligence. For his employment contract, he had
signed a declaration to disclose no information about his work after his employment
ceased. Later he became a Soviet agent. He was discovered and the British government
imprisoned him. He escaped and fled to the Soviet Union. He wrote a book about it and his
secret services. The information in the book was no longer confidential. The Crown brought
an action for all the profits he made on the book. It argued a restitutionary principle should
apply.

Verdict: It was held that in exceptional cases, when the normal remedy is inadequate to
compensate for breach of contract, the court can order the defendant to account for all
profits. This was an exceptional case. Blake had harmed the public interest. Publication was

12
a further breach of his undertaking of confidentiality. The normal contractual remedies of
damages, specific performance or injunction were not enough, and the publishers should
pay any money owing to Blake to the Crown.

34. Topic: Unlawful agreements (Forbidden by Law)

Case Name: Brij Mohan v MPSRTC

Facts: Petitioner entered into an agreement with MPSRTC to ply his motor vehicle. Later
tenders were invited by the Corporation from private operators for the grant of the
privilege of running buses as stage carriages as the nominees of the Corporation. Aggrieved
by the said advertisement the petitioner filed the writ petition.

Verdict: Petition dismissed

Rationale: The law did not permit the corporation to allot a stage carriage permit granted
to it to a private operator for working as a nominee.

35. Topic: Unlawful Agreements (Defeat any law)

Case Name: Ram Sewak v Ram Charan

Facts and Verdict: An agreement between the partners of a firm to conceal income in
certain respects so as to evade income tax has been held to be unlawful.

Rationale: What defeats the purpose of law is void and be defeated.

36. Nanjappa vs Muthuswami

Not Done

37. Nordenfelt vs. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd. (English Law)

Facts:
It involved the sale of goodwill by an inventor and a manufacturer of guns and
ammunitions with a company who agreed with the buyer company: (1) Not to
practise the same trade for 25 years (2) Not to engage in any competing business for
the time being carried on by the company.

13
 He thereafter entered into agreement with another manufacturer
The company brought an action to restrain him.

Held:

First part of the agreement valid as it was reasonably necessary

But the second part which prohibited him from competing with the company in any
business was unreasonable and therefore void.

38. Madhub Chander vs. Raj Coomar

Facts:
Plaintiff and defendant were rival shopkeepers in Calcutta
Defendant agreed to pay a sum of money if the plaintiff would close his business in
the locality
The plaintiff did accordingly, but the defendant refused to pay.

Held:

Agreement was held to be void.

It was in partial restraint of trade; Section 27 was intended to not only prevent a
total restraint, but also a partial one.

Exceptions to restraint Exclusive dealing agreements

39. Gujarat Bottling Co. vs Coca Cola Co.

Facts:
Coca Cola entered into a bottling agreement with Gujarat Bottling Co.,
Coca Cola required Gujarat Bottling Co to not involve itself, sell, deal or otherwise be
concerned with beverages of any other brands during the subsistence of the
agreement.
However, Gujarat Bottling Co. transferred some of its shares to some companies
which had agreements with PepsiCo, Coca Colas chief rival in the market.

14
 Held:

Court held that if the breach of this Non-compete clause has led to an irreparable
damage to the company and the company can prove it, then compensation would be
granted.
The agreement of Coca Cola with Gujarat Co. was held to be valid as it was outside
scope of section 27.

Obligation of a person enjoying the benefit of a non-gratuitous act

40. P C Wadhwa vs. State of Punjab

Facts:

The defendant applied for the post of stipendiary probationer for a course in Indian
Forest College, Dehra Dun
The advertisement to which he had referred to carried the information that all the
probationers had to serve the Forestry Department for not less than 5 years, failing
to do which theyd have to pay back all the money spent on them.
The plaintiff didnt sign the bond.
The plaintiff got selected as an IPS officer. The government started deducting his
training money from his salary, to which he protested.
The plaintiff lost the case and appealed to the SC.

Held:
The court held that the 3 necessities to be fulfilled in order for the person who
enjoyed the benefit of a non-gratuitous act has been fulfilled in this case.
1)The person should lawfully do something for the benefit of the other person; 2)
The person doing the act must not do so gratuitously; and 3) The other person must
enjoy the benefit of the non-gratuitous act.
Since the necessities have been fulfilled, the appellant has to perform his part of the
obligation. Hence appeal dismissed.

15
Liquidated Damages and penalties, the primary conclusion of the court appears to be
that Liquidated Damages should be regarded as reasonable compensation.

41. ONGC vs. Saw Pipes

Facts:-
In this case, ONGC ordered pipes from SAW Pipes Ltd. on certain terms and
conditions and for dispute resolution it also had an arbitration clause. Disputes
arose as SAW Pipes was unable to conform to the time.
Schedule prescribed for supplies due to the strike of the workers in Europe for
almost two months.
SAW Pipes informed these facts to ONGC which in turn replied that damages as per
the contract would have to be paid.
SAW Pipes thereafter supplied the pipes and ONGC deducted a large sum from the
bill on account of delay without there being any adjudication or determination by a
third party.

Held:-
The matter was referred to arbitration and an order was passed in favor of the
respondents.
The same was challenged before a single Judge of High Court, which dismissed the
petition.
A further challenge before a division bench was also negated.
An appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) came to
be heard by two Judges who allowed the appeal and set aside the award. It then
considers the facts of the case, and concluded that ONGC was justified in deducting
the amount and the arbitrators were wrong in awarding the amount with interest
and set aside the award.

42. Port Trust of Madras vs Bombay Co

Not Done

16
Damages for Breach of contract

43. Hadley vs Baxandale

Facts:-

A shaft in Hadleys (P) mill broke rendering the mill inoperable. Hadley hired
Baxendale (D) to transport the broken mill shaft to an engineer in Greenwich so that
he could make a duplicate.

Hadley told Baxendale that the shaft must be sent immediately and Baxendale
promised to deliver it the next day. Baxendale did not know that the mill would be
inoperable until the new shaft arrived.

Baxendale was negligent and did not transport the shaft as promised, causing the
mill to remain shut down for an additional five days.

Hadley had paid 2 pounds four shillings to ship the shaft and sued for 300 pounds in
damages due to lost profits and wages.

The jury awarded Hadley 25 pounds beyond the amount already paid to the court
and Baxendale appealed.

Verdict :

Baxendale could only be held liable for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if
Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance.

44. Sales Tax Officer Banaras vs Kanhaya Lal

Not Done

45. Sushila Devi vs Hari Singh

Couldnt prepare for last two cases as they are not available in short.
Available Only in Indian kanoon.

17
Case List
1. Upton Rural District Council vs Powell
2. Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt
3. Adams vs Lindsell
4. Powell vs Lee
5. Felthouse vs Bindley
6. Haris vs Nickerson
7. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemist Let
8. Badri Prasad vs State of MP
9. Harvey vs Facey
10. Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
11. Meritt vs Meritt
12. Balfour vs Balfour
13. Durga Prasad vs Baldeo
14. Pournami Oil Mills vs State of Kerala
15. Wallis vs Pratt
16. Henderson vs Stevenson
17. LIC of Indi vs R Vasireddy
18. Hyde vs Wrench
19. Chinnaya vs Venkatrammaya
20. Tweddle vs tkinson
21. Rajlukhee Debee vs Bhootnath Mukherjee
22. Gopal Co Ltd vs Hazarilal
23. Ryder vs Woombwell
24. Mohori Bebi vs Dharmodas Ghose
25. Suraj Narayan vs Sukhi Ahir
26. Leslie vs Shiel
27. Khan Gul vs Lakha Singh
28. Kidar Nath vs Ajudhiya Prasad
29. Nash vs Inman
30. Chikam Ammiraju vs Chikam Seshama
31. Wajid Khan vs Raja Ewaj Ali Khan
32. Derry vs Peek
33. AG vs Blake
34. Brij Mohn vs MPSRTC
35. Ram Sewak vs Ram Charan
36. Nanjappa vs Muthuswami
37. Nordenfelt vs Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd.
38. Madhub Chander vs Raj Coomar Das
39. Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd vs Coco Cola
40. PC Wadhwa vs State of Punjab
41. ONGC vs Saw Pipes
42. Port Trust of Mdras vs Bombay Co
43. Hadley vs Baxandale
44. Sales Tax Officer Banaras vs Kanhaya Lal
45. Sushila Devi vs Hari Singh

18
 Work List
S.No. Questions Person
1. 1-16 Bhasker
2. 17-35 Sameer
3. 36-40 Shreesha
4. 41-45 Chandola
Compiled by Shivansh

19