JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 394/4/- for an alleged breach of a contract for the sale of saw dust. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection in which he has claimed enhancement of the damages by Rs. 394/4/-.

(2) The relevant facts are as follows: The de fendant who is a forest contractor and a timber merchant at Yeotmal had opened branch office at Murtizapur for the sale of timber and saw dust. According to the plaintiff, he had appointed Gopikisan (P. W. 2) as the manager of the shop and that Gopikisan entered into a contract with the plaintiff on 29-8-1948 for the supply of 2000 bags of saw dusttin four months at the rate of Re. 1/- per bag. The plaintiff alleges that he paid Rs. 250/- as an advance to Gopikisan, that Gopikisan delivered to him only 423 bags of saw dust and that neither he nor the defendant delivered to him the balance. It may be mentioned that in the contract it is stated that if a breach were committed the defendant would be liable to pay Rs. 1000/- by way of damages. The plaintiff therefore claimed this amount together with of a sum of Rs. 102/- which was in excess of the amount which he had paid to Gopikisan over and above the price of 423 bags supplied by him from time to time.

(3) The defendant denied the claim. While he admitted that he kept a stock of timber at Murtizapur and also that Gopikisan was his servant who was working at Murtizapur, he denied that Gopikisan was either a manager of the shop, or a diwanji or an agent of the defendant, or that he had any authority to make any forward contracts for the purchase or sale of goods. He also denied the damages claim ed by the plaintiff.

(4) The trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court however granted a decree to the plaintiff for the refund of Rs. 102/- and damages to the extent of Rs. 394/4/-.

(5) The first point urged on behalf of the defendant is that Gopikisan had no authority to enter into the alleged contract. There is no doubt that Gopikisan did enter into a contract of the kind alleged by the plaintiff. But it would appear that Gopikisan had no authority to enter into such a contract. It is one thing for a person to authorise his servant to sell goods which are in stock with him, it is another to authorise him to enter into a contract! to sell goods at a future date. The plaintiff has led no evidence to prove Gopikisans authority to do the latter. Indeed he has not even alleged in his plaint that Gopikisan had any authority to enter into a contract of this kind. He was content to say that Gopikisan was the manager of the branch opened by the defendant at Murtizapur. That allegation is not sufficient. It was necessary for the plaintiff to allege further that by reason of the position which Gopikisan held he had either express Or implied authority to enter into such a contract. Reliance is however placed upon the following statement in the evidence of the defendant himself in support of the contention that Gopikisan had autho rity to enter into this contract:

"In Murtizapur the P. W. 2 was ordered to sell Saw Dust between annas -/12/- to Rs. 1/4/-.....not below annas -12/-..........P. W. 2 had authority to sell Saw Dust in Akola also at A. -/14- per bag (Yeotmal delivery). It is a fact that I had also empowered P. W. 2 to sell Saw Dust in Akola and also in Murtizapur."

This part of the evidence of the defendant only shows that Gopikisan authorised to effect sales. It does not show that he had any authority to enter into contracts. There is a real difference between a power to sell goods and a power to enter into a contract to sell goods at a future date. It is clear from the contract on which the plaintiff relies that the transaction related to future goods and not to goods then in existence. It cannot be implied that a person who has a power to sell ready goods must: also of necessity have a power to enter into a con tract for the sale of future goods. On this short grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document