Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-

This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach: of contract. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants are merchants carrying on business at Coimbatore, the defendants being merchants of Salem and manufacturers of tapioca starch. The plaintiffs’ case is that in January and February, 1946, the defendants entered into three contracts for the supply of 35 tons, 50 tons and 100 tons, of tapioca starch to the plaintiffs at Rs.15-8-0 per cwt. F.O.R. Sankaridrug, Sankaridrug being in Salem District, and as against the said three contracts the defendants received from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,000 on 21st February, 1946. The sale and purchase of tapioca were subject to the Starch Control Order of 1945 and licence was necessary for selling the commodity. Since under the contract the goods were to be despatched outside the district to Ahmedabad, Indore, Bombay and other places in addition to a licence under the Starch Control Order an export permit from the Collector of the District was necessary under the Madras Tapioca (Movement Control) Order. The plaintiffs state that the necessary export permits from the authorities were applied for by the defendants on account of the plaintiffs and that such permits were received in May, 1946, but the defendants got them wrongfully cancelled with the evil intention of resiling from the contract and with a view to sell the goods at a higher rate and that thereby they committed a breach of contract.

The defendants deny that there was any completed enforceable contract and state that the plaintiffs considering that the price of tapioca starch was rising, agreed to pay a higher rate and eventually went back on then promise and therefore the defendants were compelled to cancel the application for export permit on 17th May, 1946, though if only the plaintiffs were prepared to stand by their promise the defendants could have renewed the same even on 17th May, 1945. The defendants further contend that there was no breach or cancellation of the contract and that the contract became impossible of performance when the transport of tapioca was banned.

The lower Court found that the contracts between the parties were complete but that the suit contracts became impossible of performance on the part of the defendants for want of export permits and railway facilities in respect of the goods agreed to be sold and dismissed the suit.

In appeal, the finding of the lower Court as to there being completed contracts capable of enforcement has not been questioned by the defendants-respondents. The question therefore for decision is whether there has been a breach which would entitle the plaintiffs to damages. The appellants confined their contentions only to the breach committed by the defendants in respect of the supply of 35 tons under the first order and 25 tons under the second order, as it was in respect of these alone that the licences from the Textile Commissioner were granted; and in view of there being no licence for the remaining goods, the appellants could not press their appeal. The contracts in this case are concluded by correspondence. The correspondence with regard to the first contract started from the 15th January and ended on 30th January, 1946. The second contract is dated 25th January, 1946. On 15th January, 1946, by Exhibit A-1 the defendants write to the plaintiffs referring to their previous personal conversation and confirming acceptance to supply two wagon loads at Rs.15-8-0 per cwt. F.O.R. Sankaridrug R.S. and asking for the order form to be sent to them to enable them to get the licence from the Textile Commissioner, Bombay and permit for export from the Collector of the district. There has been further correspondence with reference to the first contract relating to the price, the plaintiffs insisting on Rs.15-4-0 the defendants having already quoted Rs.15-8-0 and maintaining it. The price appears to have been settled finally on 30th January, 1946, by Ex. A-33 wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document