Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23

DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW


UNIVERSITY

CONTRACTS

2017-18

PROJECT ON :

ENTORES v. MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION

Submitted to Submitted by

DR. VISALAKSHI VEGESNA ANIKET SACHAN, ANMOL ADHRIT

ASSOSIATE PROFESSOR, LAW Enrollment No. -170101028-170101029

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya B.A. LLB(HONS), IInd semester

National Law University SECTION-“A”


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Visalakshi Vegesna

who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project of Contracts on case study of

“Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation”, who also helped me in completing my project

and has rendered endless support, kind and understanding spirit during my project completion.

I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to her. The completion of this

project could not have been possible without the participation and assistance of various people

thus, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalising this

project within the limited time frame.

I would also like to thank the Great Almighty, source of supreme knowledge for countless love

rendered on me.
Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ............................................................................................. 5

Facts: ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Held: ....................................................................................................................................... 6

POST AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................... 8

Place of communication of acceptance: ................................................................................. 8

TELEPHONE AND TELEX: WHEN IS ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE

COMPLETED? .......................................................................................................................... 9

Communication of Acceptance .............................................................................................. 9

Acceptance when complete.................................................................................................. 10

Place where contract is complete ......................................................................................... 10

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIA REGARDING INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION . 12

DEVELOPMENTS AFTER ENTORES CASE: ..................................................................... 14

Two way instantaneous communication .............................................................................. 15

RECENT CASES .................................................................................................................... 17

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 4 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT ..................................... 19

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 23
INTRODUCTION
The following project covers the case illustration of a particular case and discusses in brief the

outline, facts, judgement, relevant provision for the mode of communication that is-

COMMUNICATION VIA TELEX and its importance as a precedent in future cases.

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327] is an English law judgement

which deals with Contract law on the moment of acceptance of any particular contract over

TELEX.

The decision of this case came on 17 May,1955, it was a landmark hearing in English Court of

Appeal in which Lord Justice Denning found that the regular postal rule did not apply for

instantaneous means of communications such as a telex. Instead, acceptance occurs where the

message of acceptance is received by the offeror.

The claimants (in England) sent a telex offer to the defendants (in Holland). The defendants

replied with a telex communication. The issue arose When did the contract come into force, in

order to determine whose law applied, that of Holland’s jurisdiction, or of English law. It was

held that to amount to an effective acceptance the acceptance needed to be communicated to

the offeree. Therefore, the contract was made in England. Contract is created when acceptance

received as Acceptance needed to be communicated before the contract was effective thus

accordingly the contract was made in England and was subject to English law.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation

Citation: 1955 2 QB 327.

Date of Judgement: 17 May, 1955

Judges: Denning LJ, Birkett LJ, Parker LJ

Plaintiff: Entores Limited.

Defendant: Miles Far East Corporation

Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales

FACTS:

Entores was a London-based trading company that sent an offer by telex for the purchase of

copper cathodes from a company based in Amsterdam. The Dutch company sent an acceptance

by telex. The contract was not fulfilled and so Entores attempted to sue the owner of the Dutch

company for damages. The controlling company, Miles Far East Corp, was based in the US

and under English law Entores could only bring the action in the US (serve notice of writ

outside the jurisdiction) if it could prove that the contract was formed within the jurisdiction,

i.e. in London rather than Amsterdam.

A series of telex messages were sent between Entores Ltd, an English company, and Miles Far

East Corporation, a Dutch company. Miles Far East Corporation made an offer to supply

cathodes to Entores Ltd. Entores Ltd made a counter offer to buy cathodes from Miles Far East
Corporation at a price of £239 10s a ton. The offer was accepted by Miles Far East Corporation

sending a Telex from Holland. The issue before the court was 'Where was the contract made?'.

This was important because Entores Ltd wished to sue Miles Far East Corporation in the

English courts but could only do so if the contract was made in England and not in Holland.

HELD:

The court held that the contract and damages were to be decided by English law. It was stated

that the postal rule did not apply for instantaneous communications. Since Telex was a form

of instant messaging, the normal postal rule of acceptance would not apply and instead,

acceptance would be when the message by Telex was received. Thus, the contract was created

in London. This general principle on acceptance was held to apply to all forms of instantaneous

communication methods. Acceptance via these forms of communication had to be clear before

any contract is created. The contract was made at the place where the English company

received the acceptance,which in this case was London, and therefore the contract was made

within the jurisdiction and leave for service out of the jurisdiction could be properly.

DENNING LJ observed in the following case:

“Suppose, for instance, that I make an offer to a man by telephone and, in the middle of his reply, the

line goes “dead” so that I do not hear his words of acceptance. There is no contract at that moment. The

other man may not know the precise moment when the line failed. But he will know that the telephone

conversation was abruptly broken off: because people usually say something to signify the end of the

conversation. If he wishes to make a contract, he must therefore get through again so as to make sure

that I heard. Suppose next, that the line does not go dead, but it is nevertheless so indistinct that I do

not catch what he says and I ask him to repeat it. He then repeats it and I hear his acceptance. The

contract is made, not on the first time when I do not hear, but only the second time when I do hear. If
he does not repeat it, there is no contract. The contract is only complete when I have his answer

accepting the offer.”1

1
Jill Poole, Casebook on Contract Law, 47 (6th ed., Oxford University Press 2003).
POST AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

According to the Indian Contract Act,1872 Section 2(b) speaks that when the peron to whom

the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.2 Thus,

when a proposal is assented by the offeree, he is said to have accepted the proposal. Further

section 4 speak that “The communication of an acceptance is complete – as against the proposer

when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor;

as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.3

This communication of an Acceptance is only complete when the knowledge of the acceptance

reaches the proposer. Here the words “put in the course of transmission” implies that postal or

telegram services can be used.

Since the proposal has been communicated using the postal service, any means of

communication which is faster than or at least equally efficient can be used to communicate

the acceptance. It must be noted that if the proposal specifies a particular method, then that

method should be followed.

PLACE OF COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE:

The offer may specify where the letter of acceptance may be addressed to, in which case the

letter must reach that place within the given period, the communication should be posted to the

correct address or the last known address. The place of the contract is the place from where the

letter of acceptance has been posted.

2
Indian Contract Act, 1872 section 2(b).
3
Indian Contract Act, 1872 section 4.
TELEPHONE AND TELEX: WHEN IS ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER AND
ACCEPTANCE COMPLETED?

The communication by telex or telephone, fax or emails is categorised under “instantaneous”

modes of communication. They are called so because in these modes in an absence of the

contracting parties the communication of offer or acceptance or counter offers reaches the party

within a fraction of second or microseconds, i.e., instantaneously in the form of electronic

signals. The four instantaneous modes for communicating are the telephone, telex, fax, and

emails.

Further, telephone and telex are dealt together in the next section and fax has been dealt in the

succeeding section.

COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE

Section 2 Clause (b), of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states when the person to whom the

proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. 4 The

communication of proposal through telephone or telex is complete when the proposal is being

communicated to the offeree, i.e., in the case of telephone, when the offeree hears the offer and

in the case of telex, when the offeree receives and read the offer, the communication of the

proposal is said to be complete.5 For an acceptance to be communicated, it must normally be

brought to the notice of the offeror. Thus there is no contract if the words of acceptance are

“drowned by an aircraft flying overhead” ; or if they are spoken into a telephone after the line

has gone dead or become so indistinct that the offeror does not hear them.6

4
Indian Contract Act, 1872 section 2(b).
5
William A. Jr. ,The Entores Decissiom:New Rule for the Formation of Bilaterlal Contracts 45 Geo law jounal,
76 (1966).
6
H.G. Beale, Chitty on Contracts 2-044 (29th ed. Sweet & Maxwell 2004).
ACCEPTANCE WHEN COMPLETE
When parties are present in front of each other during the time the proposal is being made, the

acceptance can easily be communicated by the offeree. But the absence of the parties in front

of each other, makes them rely on external sources for transmission of their message. When a

telephone is used as a means of communication, then the acceptor is well known for the fact if

the offeror has received his message or not, and thus, he can send it again if any disturbances

occur in the transmission of the message regarding acceptance.

Therefore, in the case of acceptance, the contract is concluded when acceptance reaches the

proposer, i.e., when he has heard the message of acceptance.The postal rule of completion of

acceptance, which when acceptance is put in the course of transmission it is deemed to be

complete does not apply in the case of communication through telephone or telex.

PLACE WHERE CONTRACT IS COMPLETE


In Indian law, when parties are at a distance and communicate an offer and acceptance via

telephone or telex, then the place of completion of the contract is the place where the offeree

speaks to the offeror his acceptance to the offer. Thus, when the offeree expresses his

acceptance, the place at which he says it is the one where a contract is formed.

While in English law, when parties are at a distance and communicate an offer and acceptance

via telephone or telex, then the place of completion of the contract is the place where the offeror

receives the news of acceptance of the offer by the offeree. Thus, when the offeror receives the

communication of acceptance, the place where he receives the communication is the place

where the contract is formed.7 In other cases the general rule is that contract is made when and

7
Sally Woodward, Contracts and Communication, The Cambridge Law Journal 41 (1982 236-239).
where acceptance is received. On other hand if other means of communication is by telegram

different rule prevails.8

8
J. Beatson, Anson’s Law of Contract 44 (28th ed. Oxford University Press 2008).
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIA REGARDING INSTANTANEOUS
COMMUNICATION

In the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v M/S. Girdharilal Parshottamdas9, which is

considered to be a landmark case in Indian law describing communication using instantaneous

methods, telephone, the following guidelines were given:

When the offeree speaks his acceptance, and his words are put in the course of transmission,

he is unable to revoke his acceptance. With technological advancement, the device called

telephone delivers the message signal instantaneously and within a gap of nanoseconds, the

offeror can know the acceptance of the offeree. Thus, it can be said that when offeree speaks

his acceptance the offeror gets to hear it and hence, the contract is formed at the place offeree

speaks of his acceptance.

A contract via instantaneous modes of communication is formed when the offeree accepts the

offer and intimates the offeror of his acceptance. The intimation must be by the same external

manifestation which law regards as sufficient.

In the case of telegrams or post, a contract is formed when the offeree puts his acceptance in

the course of transmission. This rule, will not apply in case of instantaneous modes of

communication like the telephone. A contract, in the event of inter-absentes of parties where

communication takes place via telephone, will be complete when the offeree accepts the offer

and intimates the offeror of his acceptance. This intimation would make the offer and

acceptance of a binding contract. Thus, the postal rule would not apply in instantaneous modes

of communication.

9
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas v. M/S Girdharilal Parshottamdas, 2007 S.C.C. OnLine Bom. 450.
This is because a telephonic conversation is taken in a sense that the parties are in the presence

of each other, where each party can hear the voice of the other. “Telephone is an instantaneous

communication of speech intimating offer and acceptance, rejection and counter-offer.

Intervention of an electrical impulse which results in the instantaneous communication of

messages from a distance does not alter the nature of the conversation so as to make it

analogous to that of an offer and acceptance through post or by Telegram. Also, no third or

external agency is involved in communicating the acceptance of one party to another in the

case of telephone, making it a conversation that can be taken as instantaneous mode and thus

it can be taken in a sense that parties are in the presence of with each other.10

10
Henthorn v. Fraser (1892) 2 Ch. 27.
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER ENTORES CASE:

From Entores, the rule, which is followed elsewhere also (including India), which emerges for

instantaneous communications is that the contract is only complete ‘when the acceptance is

received by the offeror’. Birkett LJ also concurred with Denning, LJ, adding that the ordinary

rule of law, ‘to which the special considerations governing contracts by post were exceptions,

was that the acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the offeror. Lastly, Parker LJ said

that there was no need for the postal rule where the parties were in each other’s presence or

where, though separated in space, communication between them was, ‘in effect, instantaneous’

and that although the dispatch and receipt of a message by telex was ‘not completely

instantaneous’, the parties were ‘to all intents and purposes in each other’s presence’ and there

was no reason to depart from the general rule.11

The verdict of the Court in Entores not to apply the postal rule to telex communications was

upheld by the House of Lords in the Brinkibon case. Th-is case involved a contract for the sale

of steel bars between an English company (Brinkibon), the buyer, and an Austrian company,

the seller (Stahag). The buyer sent its acceptance to the offer of the seller by telex to Vienna.

The contract was not performed, therefore, the buyer wished to sue the seller. The buyer wanted

to issue a writ against the seller and applied to serve an out of jurisdiction party. It could only

be able to do so if the contract had been formed in England. The question, at issue, was,

therefore, ‘where the contract was made’. The House of Lords decided that the contract was

formed in Vienna. It accepted the principle in Entores v Miles Far East Cowhere in the case

11
E-Contract An Overview, shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38507/16/16_chapter 9.pdf.
of instantaneous communication, which includes telex, the formation of contract generally

occurs at the place where the acceptance is received. The House of Lords again accentuated

that the general rule required that the acceptance be communicated,17 with Lord Wilberforce

describing the postal rule as ‘an exception applying to non-instantaneous communication at a

distance’.18 Although Lord Wilberforce laid emphasis on the fact that the involvement of

agents or other intermediaries and error or default at the recipient’s end might complicate

matters, yet in ‘the simple case of instantaneous communication between principals’,19 the

general rule applied. Lord Brandon observed that the postal rule was based on considerations

of commercial expediency which applied where there was ‘bound to be a substantial interval

between the time when the acceptance is sent and the time when it is received’, but not where

the means of communication was instantaneous in nature.

Where it is instantenaoes acceptace takes effect when and where it actulally comes to the

offerors attention. The offer can be rejected or revocked before time.

TWO WAY INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION


Assumption with instantenous methods of communication is that both parties are present, there

is no dealing between sending and receiver of the acceptance and any failure of communication

is usually detectable and rectifiable immediately. In Brinkibon Ltd. v.Stahahg Stahl und

12
Stahlwarenhandels gesellschaft mbH , it was held that in cases of instantaneous

communication acceptance takes effect when and where actually brought to the attention of the

offeror. Unless one of the parties, should have detected and rectified the communication

failure. Lord Denning gave the following examples in Entores v. Miles Far East Corporation.

12
Brinkibon Ltd. v Stahahg Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels gesellschaft mbH, 1983 2 A.C. 34.
 If a face to face oral acceptance is drowned out by noisy aircraft flying overhead the

offeree must repeat his acceptance once the aircraft has passed.

 If the telephone goes dead before the acceptance is completed, the offeree must

telephone back to complete the acceptance.

 If the offeror does not catch the clear and audible words of an acceptance or the printer

receiving a telex runs out of ink, but the offeror does not bother to ask for the message

to be repeated, it is offerors own fault that he did not get acceptance and he will be

bound.

When neither is blameworthy the rule acquiring actual communication of acceptance favours

the offeror. Lord Denning said “if offeror without any fault on his part does not receive the

message of acceptance—yet the sender of it reasonably believe it has got home when it has

not- then I think there is no contract.13

13
Mindy Chen & Wishart, Contract law 81 (3rd ed. Oxford University Press).
RECENT CASES

In Shri Badrinarain Alloys & Steels Ltd. v. .Niel Hirjee & Anr.14 the defendants contend

that the postal rule applies in the case of contracts made by conversation on telephone. The

plaintiffs contend that the rule which applies to those contracts is the ordinary rule which

regards a contract as complete only when acceptance is intimated to the prosper. In the case of

a telephonic conversation, in a sense the parties are in the presence of each other: each party is

able to hear the voice of the other. There is instantaneous communication of speech intimating

offer and acceptance, rejection or counter-offer. Intervention of an electrical impulse which

results in the instantaneous communication of messages from a distance does not alter the

nature of the conversation as to make it analogous to that of an offer and acceptance through

post or by telegraph” the settled supreme court landmark case Bhagwandas Goverdhandas

Kedia v. Girdharlal Parshottamdas & Co. on communication i,e, was referred and followed

which indicates that still the cases relating to it are followed by Indian judiciary.

Communication by fax is similar to communication by telex. Communication by fax is also

instantaneous and is in fact through, by means of a telephone connection. The Supreme Court

has accepted that in the case of Quadricon15communication by telex the normal rule would

apply and the contract would be completed only when the acceptance is received by the offerer.

Accordingly, in case of communication by fax, also the normal rule would apply and the

contract would be completed only when the acceptance is received by the offerer.

14
Shri Badrinarain Alloys & Steels Ltd. v. Niel Hirjee & Anr., 2016 S.C.C. OnLine Cal. 8834.
15
Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd., 2007 S.C.C. OnLine Bom. 1091.
Mr. Doctor submitted that though the Supreme Court quoted extensively from the judgment

in Entores Ltd.'s case.

The Supreme Court however held that in case of contracts made by conversation on telephone,

the ordinary view applied. Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the judgment read as under: —

“12. In England the Court of Appeal has decided in Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East

Corporation, : “ where a contract is made by instantaneous communication, e.g. by

telephone, the contract is complete only when the acceptance is received by the offeror,

since generally an acceptance must be notified to the offeror to make a binding contract;16

Obviously the draftsman of the Indian Contract Act did not envisage use of the telephone

as a means of personal conversation between parties separated in space, and could not have

intended to make any rule in that behalf. The question then is whether the ordinary rule

which regards a contract as completed only when acceptance is intimated should apply, or

whether the exception engrafted upon the rule in respect of offers and acceptances by post

and by telegrams is to be accepted. If regard to be to the essential nature of conversation

by telephone, it would be reasonable to hold that the parties being in a sense in the presence

of each other, and negotiations are concluded by instantaneous communication of speech,

communication of acceptance is a necessary part of the formation of contract, and the

exception to the rule imposed on grounds of commercial expediency is inapplicable”.

16 Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd., 2007 S.C.C. OnLine Bom. 1091.
ANALYSIS OF SECTION 4 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

(i) Lack of information regarding the modes of communication in this section.

Dealing with the modern instantaneous mode of communication is major issue currently. The

problem becomes more complicated when the communication is done by specific modern

media like e-mails, telephone calls, fax and especially social media platforms on the internet.

The communication of electronic messages have been described in the Information Technology

Act, 2000 but it does not deal with the contracts made through these messages.

(ii) Modern communication modes can act both as instantaneously as well as non-

instantaneously

Section 4 signifies that “the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the

proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the

acceptor and as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer”. Here it

is said to put in a course of transmission but no specific transmission is mentioned;17 so it

includes all kinds of transmissions even e-mail and Facebook. Though e-mail or Facebook

communication is within the purview of Section 4, no specific rule is constituted whether postal

rule or rule of instantaneous communication will be considered same as e-mail and Facebook

contract. If someone sends a message through Facebook or e-mail and opposite party replies

instantly it seems to be instantaneous communication. In contrast, if a person sends a message

through e-mail or Facebook Chat Messenger but opposite party does not reply instantly; then

it seems to be non-instantaneous communication in nature. Analysing the nature of e-mail and

17
Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (EBC, Lucknow, 12th ed, 2017)
Facebook communication, it deems to be instantaneous as well as non-instantaneous

communication.

(iii) What rule of communication should be applied

Justice Hidayatullah had said, “the law was framed at a time when telephones, wireless, Telstar

and Early Bird were not contemplated”18. The Information Technology Act, 2000, follows no

rule of instantaneous communication or postal rule. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer

resource outside the control of the originator and the receipt would occur in the case of e-mail

when the message enters the addressee’s electronic mailbox; so contract is complete when the

message enters into the addressee’s mailbox. In pursuance of Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East

Corpn.19, if we categorise e-mail or Facebook communication as instantaneous communication

i.e. telex, telephone, fax; the contract is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the

proposer. If the proposer does not hear the acceptance for chaos or noise the contract is not

completed. Alternatively, if we follow postal rule in e-mail or Facebook contract the contract

is complete as soon as the e-mail or message is sent.

Keeping in mind the main elements which are essential for formation of a contract, some

additions are required in Section 4 of the Contract Act, 1872. There should be information

regarding the various modes of communication and which modes are instantaneous or non-

instantaneous. Not only this, proper rules should be provided for these modes of

communication.

18
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 543.
19
Entores v. Miles Far East Corp., (1955) 2 Q.B. 327.
Considering the nature of Facebook and e-mail communication we should apply rule of

instantaneous communication as well as postal rule as it is mentioned earlier that nature of

instantaneous communication and postal rule existed in these modern modes of

communications. When the nature of initiation of negotiation is instant, the instantaneous

communication should be applied whatever the nature of completion of the negotiation and

contract is complete when acceptance comes to the knowledge of the proposer. But when the

nature of negotiation is not instant, the postal rule should be applied and the contract is

complete when the acceptance is sent and gone beyond the control of the acceptor. If it is

instant nature the offeror has option to revoke the contract before the acceptance coming to his

knowledge and in non-instant contract, the offeror has enough time to revoke the proposal

before the acceptance is sent. In the case of fax and e-mail, the sender is unable to know at

once about the success or failure of the communication. It is therefore submitted that the rules

of postal communication must be applicable to communication by fax or e-mail, or messages

sent by similar electronic means except where the sender can verify the proper communication

of the message immediately.


CONCLUSION

Currently Section 4 of the Contract Act, 1872 lacks to keep pace with the modern world.

Amendments/reforms are needed to include and rectify the section that will enable to form

contracts without any difficulty. As it can be observed from the cases and judgments of the

cases mentioned. The Supreme Court in Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal

Parshottamdas & Co., following the English decision in Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corpn.

has held that Section 4 of the Contract Act is only applicable in cases of non-instantaneous

forms of communication and would not apply when instantaneous forms of communication are

used. The Court observed that the draftsman of the Contract Act did not contemplate the use

of instantaneous means of communications. Hence, where proposal and acceptance are made

by instantaneous means of communications like telephone, telex, etc., and the postal rule does

not apply and the contract is made where the acceptance is received. Therefore, the default

rules elucidated above may have a relevance only in non-instantaneous forms of contract

formation. “Though e-mail communication has some of the trappings of instantaneous

communication, nevertheless, it is a fragmented process involving many stages. The e-mail

message is split into various packets and sent via different routes. Further, unlike in

instantaneous forms of communication, the sender does not know if the transmission of the e-

mail is successful, for even though he gets a delivery receipt, it only signals delivery to the

mailbox and does not indicate that the other party has the knowledge of the receipt. Thus, e-

mail messages would come under the category of non-instantaneous form of communication.

The default rules enunciated above would apply to e-mail contracts.”


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases:

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co.

Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd

Shri Badrinarain Alloys & Steels Ltd. v. Niel Hirjee & Anr

Brinkibon Ltd. v Stahahg Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels gesellschaft mbH

Henthorn v. Fraser

Other Authorities:

Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief

Mindy Chen & Wishart, Contract law

E-Contract An Overview,

shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38507/16/16_chapter 9.pdf

J. Beatson, Anson’s Law of Contract

Jill Poole, Casebook on Contract Law