Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

1969 SCR (2) 380

(Ascertainment)

FACTS:
The appellant (A) 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, A was prohibited from cutting timber in exercise of his rights
under the contract. On Feb, 1, the State said that A’s 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, A expressed his willingness to pay the additional
sum but reserved his right to claim a refund of the first sum. The State rejected A’s
right to cut trees. A then filed a Suit claiming specific performance of the contract.

ISSUE: Whether the property was vested in the state by the Act or transferred to
the Appellant?

CONTENTIONS (A)

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 A, did .not vest in the State

3. In any event a new contract was completed on February 5, 1955, and the appellant was

entitled to its specific performance.

HELD:
Trial Court: Favored the Appellant, A
High Court (MP): Allowed the appeal of the State and dismissed the suit brought by A.
SUPREME COURT (SIKRI, J.) (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.

3. Under the terms of the contract, there was no sale of the whole of the trees, and, it had to

be ascertained which trees fell within the description of trees which the appellant was

entitled to cut. Till that was done they were not ‘ascertained goods’ within s. 19 of the

Sale of Goods Act 1930.

4. Even if the letter of Feb 1 could be treated as an offer, there was no unconditional

acceptance of the offer, because, there was a reservation by the appellant of his right to

claim refund in his letter dated 5th Feb and hence there was no concluded contract.
 Title of the case: Crowther v. Shannon Motor Co. Ltd. [1975] 1 W.L.R. 30

Summary of the Fact:

In 1972 the plaintiff paid £390 for a 1964 Jaguar car with 82,000 miles on the milometer. He
drove it 2,000 miles within three weeks of purchase and then the engine seized up. At the time of
the sale the engine must have been nearing the point of failure.

Issue:
1. Whether a breach of condition occurred?

Decision:
It was held that the seller was in breach of the condition that the car should be reasonably fit for
the purpose of being driven on the road.

Reasoning:
The car became useless after running 2,000 miles. Therefore, this is not a minor defect and
frustrated the main purpose of the contract. The implied condition as to fitness was not fulfilled.