SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(SC) 11

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 9th February 1951
FAZL ALI, B.K. MUKHERJEA AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.
Col. D. I. Mac Pherson - Applt.
Versus
M. N. Appanna and another - Resps.
Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1950.
Advocates appeared
Shri C. R. Pattabhi Raman, Advocate, instructed by Shri M. S. K. Sastri, Agent - for Applt. Shri Jindra Lal, Advocate, instructed by Shri Rajinder Narain, Agent - for Resps.

Advocates:
C.R.Pattabhi raman, JINDRA LAL, M.S.K.Shastri, RAJINDAR NARAIN

Headnote:Contract-Specific performance-Negotiation by letter-Statement of lowest price-Offer and counter-offer-Acceptance.

       A certain house belonged to A and Y was looking after it. B offered Rs. 6,000 - to Y for purchase of the house. Y cabled to A informing him that there was an offer of Rs. 6,000/- for the house. A sent a cable on the 5th August 1944 in reply informing that he would not accept less than Rs. 10,000 for it. Y conveyed this information to B on the 9th August 1944 and on the 14th B wrote a letter to Y stating that he thereby confirmed the oral offer of Rs. 10,000 that he had made to Y on the 11th. On the 26th Y cabled to A as follows: " Offered Rs 10,000 May I sell" On the same day, W, another person with whom also A was in correspondence, sent an offer for Rs. 11,000 and A accepted it. B sued for specific performance alleging that As cable of the 5th was a counter-offer and as he had accepted it on the 14th, there was a concluded contract for sale in his favour on the day.

       Held: there was no concluded contract. The cable sent by A on the 5th was a mere statement of the lowest price at which he would sell and invite offers, and contained no implied contract to sell at that price. Bs letter of the 14th was in fact only a fresh offer, and as A had not accepted it, there was no concluded contract in favour of B.

       Harvey V. Facey (1893) A.C. 552 was applied to this case. In that case, the appellants had telegraphed to the respondents "Will you sell us B.H.P.? Telegraph lowest cash price," and the respondents had telegraphed in reply. "Lowest price for B.H.P. £ 900", and then the appellants telegraphed. "We agree to buy B.H.P. for £ 900 asked by you. Please send us your title-deed in order that we may get early possession" but received no reply. On these facts, the Privy Council held that there was no contract and Lord Norris, who delivered the judgment of the Board, observed as follows:

       1. From A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 740.

       " The third telegram from the appellants treats the answer of L.M. Facey stating his lowest prices as an unconditional offer to sell to them at the price named. Their Lordships cannot treat the telegram from L.M. Facey as binding him in any respect, except to the extent it does by its terms, viz., the lowest price. Everything else is left open, and the reply telegram from the appellants cannot be treated as an acceptance of an offer to sell them; it is an offer that required to be accepted by L.M. Facey. The contract could only be completed if L.M. Facey had accepted the appellants last telegram. It has been contended for the appellants that L.M. Faceys telegram should be read as saying yes to the first question put in the appellants telegram, but there is nothing to support that contention. L.M. Faceys telegram gives a precise answer to a; precise question, viz., the price. The contract must appear by the telegrams, whereas the appellants are obliged to contend that an acceptance of the first question is to be implied. Their Lordships are of opinion that the mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor would sell contains no implied contract to sell at that price to the persons making the inquiry."

Judgment

Fazl Ali. I. (on behalf of himself and Mukherjea and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.)- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Coorg in a suit filed by respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant 1) and respondent 2 (herein after referred to as defendant 2), for the specific performance of a contract. Defendant 1 owned a bungalow in Mercara known as "Morvern Lodge. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff for the specific performance of an alleged contract of sale in respect of this bungalow.

2. It appears that defendant 1 owned certain estates in Mercara, and one Mr. White was an alternative Director in one of the estates, and Youngman was the manager of another estate also belonging to defendant 1 and was looking after "Morvern Lodge during his absence. It seems that about the middle of 1944, the plaintiff asked White if be would cable to defendant 1 his offer of Rs. 4,000 for the bungalow, and, on 1-6-1944, White sent a cable to defendant 1 to the following effect: Have enquiries Mercara bungalow if for sale, wire lowest figure. On 24-7-1944, the plaintiff wrote to defendant 1 that he was prepared to purchase the bungalow for Rs. 5,000 and if the offer was acceptable to him, he (defendant 1) should inform the plaintiff to which bank he should issue a cheque in payment of the price. This letter was followed up by a cable from Youngman to defendant 1 to the following effect : "Have had offer Morvern Lodge rupees six thousand ,for immediate possession. On 8-8-1944, Youngman received a cable from defendant 1 saying: "Won t accept less than rupees ten thousand." On 7- 8-1944, the plaintiff wrote to Youngman asking him whether his offer had been accepted, and saying that he was prepared to accept any higher price if found reasonable. Meanwhile, on the 8th August, defendant 1 sent an airgraph to Youngman, which states inter alia: "I got a cable from you a few days ago saying you had an offer of Rs. 6,000 for Morvern Lodge. At the same time I got one from White saying value of Bungalow was Rs. 10,000. So wired you- Won t accept less than Rs. 10,000. " On 9-8-1944, Youngman wrote to the plaintiff as follows : "In reply to your letter, dated 7th August, I received yesterday a cable from Col. MacPherson regarding your offer of Rs. 6.000, which reads as follows: "Won t accept less than rupees ten thousand" MacPherson." The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that this letter of Yoangman was received by him on 14-8-1944, and he immediately accepted the "counter-offer made by defendant 1," and confirmed it in writing in a letter addressed to Youngman. In his evidence, however, the plaintiff has stated that he met Youngmen on the 11th August after receiving his letter and told him personally that he would pay Rs. 10,000 for the bungalow and will require immediate delivery. There was also some talk about the conveyance charges, and ultimately the plaintiff agreed to bear those charges. Afterwards, he wrote to Youngman a letter on the 14th August in which after referring to the conversation he had with the latter he stated as follows : "I hereby confirm my oral offer of ten thousand for the bungalow. I shall be grateful if you will kindly hurry up with consultation with your lawyers at Madras and make arrangement to receive the money and hand over the bungalow as early as practicable." It appears that 3 days later, i. e, on the 17th August, one Subbayya Wrote to Youngman stating that "he confirmed his offer of Rs. 10,500 made to him (Youngman) the previous dey for the purchase of the bungalow," and he excepted that the latter had cabled to defendant 1 communicating the offer as promised. It seems that Youngman did not communicate Subbayya s offer to defendant 1 but sent a cable to him on the 26th August to the following effect : "Offered ten thousand Morvern Lodge immediate possession. May I sell








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top