Horwill, J.

1. The appellant is a Joint Stock Company havine its office at Calcutta. We know that it had dealings with a merchant in Australia to whom it sold cotton fabrics, described as tapestries, of the kind made by the plaintiffs limited comnanv resident in Calicut, which made silk and cotton piecegoods. In October, 1941, the parties entered into correspondence with regard to the making of tapestries by the plaintiff for the defendant, who made it clear that he intended to sell them in Australia. The defendant company stated its requirements to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to send samples. After some correspondence, terms were fixed and contracts entered into between the parties for the supply, to the specification given by the defendant, of certain qualities of goods. We are here concerned with two contracts, one evidenced by Exs. P-l and P-5 for the supply of 600 pieces, and the other for the supplv of 90 pieces, evidenced by Exs. P-3 and P-5 (a). The defendant had taken delivery of many pieces under previous orders and had apparently sold them in Melbourne, but the Australian Government passed an order prohibiting the import of such goods after 1st April, 19