The plaintiff had the right to revoke the agency without cause, and the defendants were liable for damages for their failure to return the cloth and account for the sales.

Jackson—The plaintiff, on 12th February 1926, appointed the defendants as his agents for the sale of cloth. The defendants were to account to the plaintiff for the cloth sold at the rates prevailing in Bombay and were entitled to keep for themselves any excess over those rates that they might secure from purchasers. The other terms of the contract are given in the two documents, dated 12th February 1926, Ex. P-2, executed by defendant 1, and Ex. D-1, executed by the plaintiff. The rent of the shop in which the defendants were to carry on their trade in cloth and the salary of one servant were to be paid by the plaintiff, and it was stipulated that, if the stock of cloth fell below Rs. 2,000 in value, the plaintiff would no longer be liable for the rent or the pay of the servant. The plaintiff supplied the defendants with cloth of the value of Rs. 6,008-9-0 on 23rd February 1926. Between that date and 17th October 1926 the defendants sold cloth worth Rs. 989-9-0 at Bombay rates and paid that sum to the plaintiff. On 31st October 1926 the plaintiff served them with a notice (Ex. P-3), terminating the agency and requiring the defendants, within eight days, to return the cloth remaining unsold and account for the cloth sold and intimating that his liability for rent and the pay of a servant would cease from the end of the month. In their reply (Ex. P-7) the defendants promised to comply within a fortnight. In reply to a second notice (Ex. P-5), dated 8th November 1926, the defendants (Ex. P-8) denied their liability to return the cloth or to account and claimed that the plaintiff was liable to them for damages. Further notices from the plaintiff received no reply and on 13th December 1928 he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, in which he has been given a decree for the delivery of cloth worth Rs. 4,545-10-0 and the payment of Rs. 1,447-9-3 in cash or, if the cloth is not delivered, for the payment of Rupees 5,993-3-3.

2. It is the first ground of appeal on behalf of the defendants that the term relating to the payment of rent and the servant's salary really meant that the contract was to terminate when the plaintiff had not goods of the value of Rs. 2,000 to supply to the defendants and that the lower Court is wrong in holding that it meant that the contract was to terminate when the stock of the plaintiff's cloth in the defendants' hands fell below that value. There has been confusion in the use of pronouns in the two documents ; but I consider that the lower Court is correct in thinking that the stipulation relates to the value of the stock in the defendants' hands. As I read the stipulation however it is not concerned with the termination of the contract but simply with the plaintiff's liability to pay the rent of the shop and the salary of one servant. There is in fact, no term in the contract providing for the termination of it. It is entirely indefinite as to the time for which the agency was to continue, and the defendants cannot plead that, as they displayed, in selling the plaintiff's cloth, the skill and diligence required by S. 212, Contract Act, it is the plaintiff who is liable to compensate them under S. 205 of the Act for revoking the agency without sufficient cause. The plaintiff was entitled, under S. 203, to revoke the authority, given by him to the defendants without any cause, unless S. 202 of the Act applies, that is, unless the defendants had an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency.

3. It is urged on behalf of the defendants that they had an interest in the cloth supplied to them by the plaintiff for sale, because they were entitled to keep for themselves any amount obtained by them above the Bombay rates. They rely upon Illus. (a), S. 202, Contract Act, which runs as follows :

A gives authority to B to sell A's land, and to pay himself, oat of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity