(NALAM) LAKSHMIKANTHAN Vs. VTNARAYANASWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant damages which he assessed at Rs. 6,250 in addition to the payment of Rs. 3,081-4-6 which he says represents the excess amount paid to the defendants in advance for goods which were not delivered. He also claims the value of 3,000 gunnies which were given to the defendants for the purpose of enabling them to supply the goods, The contract between the plaintiff and the defendants is evidenced by Ex. A dated the 7th. June 1919, and the contract is that the defendants should supply to the plaintiff 500 tons or 6000 bags of oil-cake at the price and on the terms specified in the contract.

(2.) We are not concerned with the quality of packing because the suit is only for goods not delivered. The only question here is as regards the time of payment for and delivery of the goods. By Clause 3 of the contract the defendant says: I agree to give the goods on board the steamer at Cuddalore as and when the steamer calls at Cuddalpre during June-July; and there is also the agreement to hand over " a clean bill-of-lading " The 4th clause is Delivery to be completed by you within one week from the date of acceptance and value paid for fully.

(3.) The 5 clause fixes the price of one ton of oil-cake at Rs. 110 f.o.c-Cuddalore. The contract was to supply 500 tons or 6,000 bags. It is admitted that the defendants supplied 236 1/2 tons of goods but failed to deliver the balance of 263 1/2 tons. The plaintiff paid Rs. 28,500 in two instalments of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 13,500, and it is said that the value of the goods delivered was less than the sum advanced by Rs. 3,081-4-6, which would ordinarily have been carried over in the accounts and adjusted towards the subsequent supply of goods. In this case what happened was that the defendants had with them this amount of Rs. 3,081- 4-6 and also the 3000 empty gunny bags in which presumably the remaining goods yet to be supplied might have been delivered. Then each party charged the other with breach of contract.