The breach of contract by one party can justify the lawful cancellation of the contract by the other party, and the interpretation of conflicting contract provisions must be resolved in favor of the governing portion.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The appellant sued on the Original Side of this Court to recover a sum of Rs. 7,920 claimed as damages for breach of contract. The appellant also asked for an order directing specific performance of part of the contract and put his claim for damages hare in the alternative. The nature of the contract, however, precludes any decree for specific performance being granted and the claim for damages alone calls for consideration. Mr. Justice Gentle who tried the suit came to the conclusion that there had been no breach of the contract by the respondents, but the appellant himself had broken it.

2. The contract is partly type-written and partly printed and is dated the 5th July, 1939. A printed form commonly used by the respondents, who are a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras was used, but the main provisions were inserted by means of a type-writer at the beginning of the document. By the type-written portion, the appellant agreed to buy and the respondents agreed to sell sixty bottles of quicksilver, each bottle to contain 34.5 kilograms net. The quicksilver had to be obtained from Italy and it was stipulated that there should be a shipment of half the quantity in July and half in August, 1939. The type-written portion of the document includes these terms:

Price-- 16-12-0 per steel bottle, C.I.F. Madras.

Terms.--Document against sight payment.

3. It is a C.I.F. contract and if the document had stopped at the end of the type-written portion there could be no doubt that the appellant would have made himself liable to pay for each consignment as soon as the bill of lading and the other shipping documents were presented to him, irrespective of the arrival of the goods. Mr. Rajah Aiyar on behalf of the appellant has rightly conceded this, but he relies on the following statement in paragraph 3 of the printed conditions:

On arrival of the steamer, by which the goods have been shipped, the indestor shall take up the documents. The documents shall be delivered against payment only.

He says that this clause gave him liberty to refuse to pay until the goods had actually arrived in Madras. The case for the respondents is that the printed clause is in direct conflict with the type-written portion of the document and that the typewritten portion must prevail.

4. The goods comprising the first consignment were duly shipped from Italy, but the ship never arrived in Madras. The goods were placed on board a German vessel and was at sea when the present war broke out on the 3rd September, 1939. The vessel was apparently in the vicinity of Mormagao in Portuguese territory on the out-break of hostilities and sought, refuge there. The August portion of the contract was duly shipped on a Dutch vessel and arrived in Madras on the 19th September, 1939. On the 18th August, 1939, the respondents wrote to the appellant informing him that they had received the relevant shipping documents with regard to the first consignment and they would be sending their invoice for the amount due in respect of the goods in the course of the week. The invoice and the relative shipping documents were forwarded to the appellant the next day and on the 23rd August, the respondents wrote to the appellant enclosing a copy of the invoice which had been certified by the customs and asked him to pay the amount into the Eastern Bank, Ltd, Madras. On the same day, the manager of the Eastern Bank, Ltd., wrote to the appellant informing him that he had received instructions to collect the amount and requested him to make arrangements for payment. The appellant took no notice of these communications. On the 8th September, 1939, the respondents wrote to him demanding payment within 24 hours and informing him that on his failure to comply with the demand, the contract would stand cancelled and he would be held responsible for the damages which might be incurred as the result of his non-compliance with the demand. This letter brought a reply