The measure of damages for non-acceptance of goods is determined by the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, and the seller must take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss.

KOCHU THOMMEN, J.:- The defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. The first plaintiff is the National Textile Corporation Limited, and the second plaintiff, Vijaya Mohini Mills, is one of the Units of the first plaintiff by virtue of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974).

2. Exhibit A1 dated 17-1-1975 and Ext. A2 dated 6-1-1975 evidence a contract of sale between the second plaintiff and the defendant under which 15 bales of 40's and 25 bales of 60's of cotton yarn had been sold by plaintiff 2 to the defendant. As per the terms of the contract of sale, the goods were despatched by plaintiff 2 to the Calcutta branch of the defendant on 22-1-1975 and the relative documents were forwarded by it to the authorised bank. The defendant did not take delivery of the goods at Calcutta despite various reminders. Ext. A4 dated 25-3-1975 and Ext. A5 dated 17-4-1975 are the two telegrams sent by plaintiff 2 to the defendant urging him to take delivery of the goods lying at Calcutta.

3. Since the defendant did not take delivery of the goods, Ext. A6 notice dated 17-6-1975 was sent by plaintiff 2 to the defendant. In that notice, plaintiff 2 specifically stated that unless the goods were immediately cleared by him, it would take steps for the sale of the goods, and the defendant would be held liable for all consequential loss and damages. In reply to Ext. A6 the defendant sent Ext. All letter dated 8-7-1975, totally denying any liability or responsibility on his part for the goods despatched by plaintiff 2. He even questioned the very existence of the contract. Since the defendant refused to act up to his obligations under the contract, the goods were, sold by plaintiff 2 on 27-9-1975 to Yarn Distributors for the best available price in the market. As a result of that sale, plaintiff 2 incurred a loss of Rs. 50,455/-, which includes the difference between the contract price and the price realised by the sale as well as the lorry charges, commission, demurrage, etc. Plaintiff 2 caused a suit notice, Ext. A9 dated 14-10-1975, to be sent to the defendant. Ext. A12 dated November 4, 1975 is the reply notice sent on behalf of the defendant, denying any liability on his part whatever. The suit was accordingly instituted by the plaintiffs for realisation of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,455/-.

4. Exhibit A13 which is the book of accounts of plaintiff 2 was proved by P. W. 1 who is its accountant at Trivandrum where the accounts are maintained. At page 100 of Ext. A13 the relevant entries are recorded. Those entries fully support the plaint claim in regard to the loss, sustained as a result of the sale at Calcutta. The entries show that the difference between the contract price and the price at which the goods were ultimately sold was Rs. 30,636.80. The balance claim of Rs. 19,818.20 represents the demurrage and commissions paid and other expenses incurred.

5. The defendant in his written statement questioned the existence of the contract, the genuineness of the sale effected at Calcutta and his responsibility for the loss stated to have been incurred by plaintiff 2. D. W. 1 is the defendant. He produced Exts. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is his letter dated 18-1-1975 stated to have been despatched on the very same day as shown in the certificate of posting, Ext. B2. In that letter he has stated that the order placed by him under Ext. A1 dated 17-1-1975 was a misunderstanding and that the goods ordered were not required. He therefore requested plaintiff 2 not to despatch the goods. Ext. B2 is therefore an attempted revocation of the contract which had been already entered into between plaintiff 2 and the defendant. What would have been the effect of such revocation and the consequential damages, if any, to be paid are questions which do not arise in the present case because, as found by the Court below, Ext. B1 did not reach plaintiff 2. Ext. B2 evidences the despatch of Ext. B1, but there is no evidence as to its r