Fernando V. Subramaniam Et Al.

Present : Bertram C.J. and De Sampayo J.

FERNANDO v. SUBRAMANIAM et al.

46-D. C. Kalutara, 8,386.

Damages-Breach of contract-Goods sold against defendant-No market for goods at time of breach-Sale after some time-Claim of difference between contract price and price realized.

Defendant contracted to boy thirty leaguers of arrack, but refused to take delivery of a portion. The plaintiff gave formal notice that he would sell against him. The notice expired on July 16. The arrack was sold in September. The 'plaintiff claimed the difference between the contract price and the price realized. There was no actual market for arrack in July, and it was difficult to find purchasers for the arrack in question.

Held, that plaintiff was entitled in the circumstances to the full amount of the difference in price.

THE facts appear from the judgment of the District Judge (Allan Beven, Esq.):-

The plaintiff, who is a renter and wholesale dealer in arrack, alleges . that he entered into a contract with defendants on May 23, 1918, to supply them with 30 leaguers of arrack at Rs. 180 a leaguer, and they agreed to receive the same. The defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document