- (1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the order passed in first appeal accepting the claim of plaintiff-respondent and decreeing the suit for damages suffers from any error of law.
(2.) The respondent filed suit for recovery of damages which he claims to have suffered on account of breach of a contract caused by the appellant and also for the loss of his reputation and goodwill. The claim was resisted as the tender offered by the respondent was accepted subject to certain terms and conditions and as the respondent did not comply with it the cancellation of the contract was in consonance with the termination clause and, therefore, the suit for damages for breach of contract was liable to be dismissed. It has been found, both, by the trial court and the High court that the letter dated 10/08/1968 Exhibit 3-B issued by the appellant resulted into a concluded contract. The courts below have further held that the appellant was responsible for breach of contract. But the trial court decreed the claim for refund of security only. The High court allowed the appeal and decreed the claim for damages. The claim for loss of goodwill etc. was dismissed.
(3.) The finding recorded by the High court both on concluded contract and damages has been assailed vehemently by the learned counsel for the appellant. But a perusal of Exhibit 3-B indicates that the tender was accepted by the appellant therefore, the courts below did not commit any error of law in recording the finding that it was a case of concluded contract. It has been found by the High court that it was an admitted position that the appellant made an alteration in the price but no notice of this was served on the respondent, yet, the contract was cancelled. Therefore it was clear that the breach was committed by the appellant. This finding is supported by material on record. The learned counsel for appellant could not persuade us to interfere with this finding recorded by the High court.;