( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 6-11-1997.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows: the respondent had in the year 1970 purchased from one M/s sutherlands (Equipment and Processes) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the , uk Company") a suction press roll machine for 13,043. In that transaction the appellants had acted as agents of the said UK Company. In 1978 the respondent desired to have an additional machine as a standby machine. They, therefore, called for quotation from the said UK Company. The UK company chose not to correspond directly with the respondent but routed its correspondence through the appellants. Ultimately, an order came to be placed by the respondent for purchase of a suction press roll machine. The " order specified that supply had to be as per the previous order. The contract in this behalf is through correspondence exchanged between the parties. Almost all correspondence has been routed through the appellants.

( 3 ) ULTIMATELY, what was supplied was merely the shell of a suction press roll machine and a save-all tray. As even after further correspondence the UK h company did not supply the full machine, t