- (1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,000 paid by way of price of goods under a contract of sale, besides a sum of Rs. 5,144 claimed as damages for loss of profits on breach of the said contract by the seller, the Defendant herein.
(2.) The contract, which is not disputed, is one by which the Defendant agreed to sell and the Plaintiff agreed to purchase 500 gross of birch wood blocks of size 3" x 3" x 6* to be imported from abroad, the price being 71 shillings per gross c.i.f. Calcutta, delivery date being 4 to 6 weeks on receipt of a license. There was some delay in the import of the goods the reason whereof is not material. On June 24, 1949 the Defendant purported to deliver to the Plaintiff at its factory at Shalimar 500 gross of blocks of birch wood having already received in respect thereof a sum of Rs. 21.000. The Plaintiff's complaint is that the goods were wholly unfit far like purpose for which they were required, to wit, the manufacture of bobbins for jute mills, being full of cracks and knots and even containing large slices of bark. An alternative case is made that there was an implied term of the contract that the goods should be of merchantable quality or an implied warranty that the goods would be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required. The Plaintiff claims to have rejected the goods on June 25, 1949 and intimated the Defendant of such rejection in writing.
(3.) The defence taken is manifold. It includes, inter alia, (a) that the Defendant acted only as an agent in the transaction for foreign principals, (b) that there was no warranty with regard to the quality of the goods mentioned in the plaint, (c) that the Plaintiff had accepted the goods and consequently was not entitled to reject them afterwards, (d) that the goods were not defective as alleged in the plaint or at all and (e) that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim refund of Rs. 21,000 or any sum as loss of profits. The issues settled are as follows: (1) Is the Defendant personally bound by the contract? (2) Was there any condition and / or an implied term in the contract as alleged in paras. 3 to 5 of the plaint? (3) Did the Plaintiff accept the goods which were delivered on June 24, 1949? (4) Were the goods not of contracted quality? (5) Is the Plaintiff entitled to obtain refund of the sum of Rs. 21.000? Is the Plaintiff entitled to any damages? (6) To what relief, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled? The brief of documents which contains the relevant correspondence between the parties was marked as Exhibit A herein and the contents of this will show the attitude of the respective parties and their version before the institution of the suit.;