Back
1933 Supreme(SC) 47
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ATKIN, LORD TOMLIN, AND LORD WRIGHT.
EDRIDGE - Appellant
Versus
R. D. SETHNA - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : October 9, 1933.
Solicitors for appellants :Birkbeck, Julius, Edwards & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Peacock & Goddard.
A party suing on a contract must prove the fulfillment of conditions precedent. Wrongful repudiation by the other party does not excuse this requirement unless the claimant elects to treat the contract as terminated and sues for damages.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 51, 52 and 53 - Reciprocal promises - Conditions precedent - Order of performance - Where the order of performance is not expressly fixed, it shall be performed in the order which the nature of the transaction requires - If the nature of the transaction indicates that certain acts must be performed before a claim for payment arises, such acts constitute conditions precedent - A party cannot recover under the contract without proving performance of these conditions.
(B) Repudiation of Contract - Wrongful repudiation by one party does not, by itself, absolve the other party from establishing the fulfillment of conditions precedent if the latter chooses to sue on the contract rather than treating the contract as terminated and claiming damages under Section 53.
(C) Waiver - Waiver of a condition precedent requires evidence that the promisor accepted a position where they would be content to pay despite non-performance of the condition in the required order.
Facts of the case:
An agreement was made where a sum of money would be paid to a party provided they paid certain costs associated with a receivership and wrote letters to a solicitor and a receiver expressing satisfaction with the conduct of a company's affairs. The party failed to pay the costs or write the letters. The promisor subsequently denied the existence of the agreement. The party then sued for the money, asserting they had been ready and willing to write the letters.
Findings of Court:
The payment of costs and the writing of letters were conditions precedent to the right to recover the money. The nature of the transaction required these acts to be performed during the course of the legal proceedings to relieve the promisor of threats of legal action and investigations.
Issues: Whether the requirements to pay costs and write letters were conditions precedent under Section 52 of the Indian Contract Act, and whether the promisor's repudiation of the contract excused the claimant from performing these conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to claim money was dependent on and postponed to the performance of the stipulated conditions. Under Section 52, the order of performance is determined by the contract or the nature of the transaction. Furthermore, a wrongful repudiation of a contract does not excuse a party from proving the performance of conditions precedent if they continue to insist on the performance of the contract rather than electing to treat it as terminated and suing for damages under Section 53.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
contract law
-
reciprocal promises
- conditions precedent
-
breach of contract
- repudiation
- waiver
-
reciprocal promises
Judgement
Appeal (No. 75 of 1932) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (September 28, 1931) reversing a decree of the Court in its original jurisdiction (April 1, 1931).
The respondent instituted a suit in the High Court against R. Tilden Smith, since deceased and represented by the appellants, claiming Rs. 47,022-1-2, the equivalent of £3508-5-9, under an agreement contained in a letter dated January 7, 1926. Apart from other defences which had been abandoned, the defence was that the plaintiff could not recover as he had not, in accordance with the contract, paid certain costs and written certain letters.
The facts of the case appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge, Kemp J., dismissed the suit. The learned judge held that performance by the plaintiff of the undertakings in question were conditions precedent to his right to recover, and that a repudiation of the contract by the defendants did not relieve him from performing them.
An appeal was heard by Beaumont C. J. and Rangnekar J. and was allowed. The learned judges made a decree in favour of the plaintiff subject to his writing the letters referred to. The grounds of the judgment are stated in the judgment on the present appeal.
1933. July 2. Pritt K.C. and Vos for the appellants.
W. A. Greene K.C. and Sir Thomas Strangman for the respondent.
[Reference was made to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, ss. 51, 52, 53 ; 2 Smiths Leading Cases, 13th ed., pp. 29, 42 ; and to Colley v. Overseas Exporters . ([ 1921] 3 K. B. 302.)]
Oct. 9. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD WRIGHT. This appeal arises out of a contract between the respondent and Richard Tilden Smith (since deceased), the present appellants being added during the litigation as being representatives of his estate. This contract is contained in a letter dated January 7, 1926, signed by Tilden Smith and addressed to an agent for the respondent and duly accepted on behalf of the respondent. The letter was in the following terms —
" Dear Dinshaw,
Re R. D. Sethnas matter. If Sethna will pay costs in connection with the appointment of the receiver and the receivers costs and give credit of any distribution he may receive in respect of receivers distribution and write letters to his solicitor and to the receiver to the effect that he is satisfied that the affairs of the company have been properly conducted, I will pay him the sum of 5000l. invested by him in Ifold Herds Limited less such credit.
Yours sincerely,
(Sd.) R. Tilden Smith."
The circumstances under which this contract was made were that the respondent had in 1921 invested 5000l. in debentures in Hold Herds, Ld., a limited company incorporated and registered in England. These debentures were part of an issue of 40,000l., the residue being taken by two companies which were the nominees of Tilden Smith, who had also put a large sum of money into the company as a shareholder and whose evidence was that his total interest amounted to a very large sum. It was on his introduction that the respondent took the debentures which he did in the sum of 5000l. The venture having proved a failure, on March 28, 1925, the respondent instituted a debenture holders action against the company in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in London, claiming the usual relief including accounts and the appointment of a receiver. By an order in the action dated April 30, 1925, a Mr. Page was appointed receiver and the usual directions were given. During these proceedings the respondent made various allegations adverse to Tilden Smith in regard to his participation in the affairs of the company it was also intimated by his solicitors that an investigation should or might be held into the management of the company. There is now no suggestion that there was any ground for complaint against Tilden Smith, who was the principal sufferer by the failure of the company.
It was in this state of things and during the cou
