contracts 2 cases

Question 1

Adamson v Jarvis

Answer 1

indemnity - auctioneer- sold cattle on instruction of defendant - turn out cattle is not defs and then real owner of cattle sues auctioneer- auctioneer then sues def for loss incurred- held in favour of auctioneer

Question 2

SHeffield corp v barclay

Answer 2

a corporation, having registered a transfer of stock on the request of a banker, was held entitled to recover indemnity from the banker when the transfers were discovered to be forged.

Question 3

n Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v MoreshwarMadan Mantri-

Answer 3

commencement of liability occurs at the point when it is certain that the indemnity holder will be called upon by third party to pay. at this point the indemnified can in turn ask the indemnifier to pay. so i.e - liability of indemnifier cimmences once indemnifieds liability is absolute

Question 4

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Asha Paul,

Answer 4

Where an authorised agent of the insurance company collected the premium amount from the assured against proper receipt, the liability of the
insurer began from that moment though the agent deposited the collection with the company after the occurrence.^^

Question 5

Birkmyr v Darnell^

Answer 5

If two come to a shop and one buys, and the other to give him credit,
promises the seller, ‘If he does not pay you, I will’.”
This type of collateral undertaking to be liable for the default of another
is called a “contract of guarantee”

Question 6

Taylor v Lee- is it guarantee

Answer 6

no as the promise was :A landlord and his tenant went to the plaintiff’s store. “The landlord
said to the plaintiff: Mr Parker will be on our land this year, and you will
sell him anything he wants, and I will see it paid.”
This was held to be an original promise, and not a collateral promise to
be liable for the default of another and, therefore, not a guarantee.

Question 7

Punjab National Bank vs Sri Vikram Cotton Mills

Answer 7

Indemnity v guarantee The Supreme Court held that there must be a conditional promise made by the surety to be liable on default of the Principal Debtor.

The difference thus lies in the number of parties in bound by the contract where being; indemnity contract has two parties (indemnifier and indemnified) and guarantee contract has three parties (principal debtor, surety and debtor). Indemnity provides compensation whereas guarantee works as an assurance. This case thus clarifies this difference between guarantee and indemnity.

Question 8

Kashiba Bin Narsapa Nikade v
Narshiv Shripat

Answer 8

In India it has been held, following earlier English authorities, that where
a minor’s debt has been knowingly guaranteed, the surety should be held liable as a principal debtor himself. if the debt is “void” as the PD is a minor– “the contract of the so-called surety
is not collateral, but a principal contract”

Question 9

Madan Lal Sobe vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp

Answer 9

It was held that where credit has already been given by the creditor and the payment having become due, the creditor refrains from suing the principal debtor, that would be sufficient consideration for the surety to give a guarantee.
sec127

Question 10

Gulam Husain v M.
Faiyaz Khan - past consid guarantee

Answer 10

• A lessee agreed to pay the sum due under a lease by certain instalments
  and after a few days a person executed a surety bondJbinding himself to
  pay a certain amount in default of the payment of instalments.
  The court held that the bond was not without consideration
  criticized by pollock and mulla but past consideration is valid consideration

Question 11

Should the creditor exhaust all legal remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety for the recovery of his money?

Answer 11

Bank of Bihar vs Damodar Prasad -
The Supreme Court held that before payment, the surety has no right to dictate terms to the creditor and ask him to pursue his legal remedies against the principal in the first instance.
The surety cannot restrain an action against him by the creditor on the ground that the principal is solvent.
If the creditor has obtained a decree against the surety, the surety has no right to restrain execution against him until the creditor has exhausted all legal remedies against the principal.

Question 12

Nagpur NS Bank vs Union of India - creditors right to recovery

Answer 12

It was held that the** creditor can sue the surety** even though he has not exhausted his remedies against the principal debtor.
Unless the parties expressly or impliedly so agree, the contract of guarantee cannot be construed as imposing any condition on the creditor to exhaust all his legal remedies against the principal debtor.
similarly= bank of bihar v damodar prasad

Question 13

Central Bank of India vs CL Vimla

Answer 13

in guarantee the surety agreed to be bound by any judgement or award obtained by creditor against PD and SC hed that a compromise or settlement reached between creditor and PD is aslo binding upon Surety (guarantor)
SEC136
## Footnote

The mere absence of knowledge on the part of the guarantor of the joint settlement memo was of no consequence

Question 14

beckett v Addyman

Answer 14

notice of the surety’s death revokes a guarantee in any case in which the surety could have revoked it himself during his lifetime, unless a contrary intention is expressed by the parties in the contract.

india- discharge of surety By Death (Section 131)

Question 15

dischare of surety by variance

Answer 15

A becomes surety to C for B’s conduct as a manager in C’s bank.
Afterwards, B and C contract, without A’s consent, that B’s salary shall be raised, and that he shall become liable for one-fourth of the losses on overdrafts.
B allows a customer to overdraw, and the bank loses a sum of money.
A is discharged from his suretyship by the variance made without his consent, and is not liable to make good this loss.

Bonar v mcdonald

Question 16

Amrit Lal vs State Bank of Travancore

Answer 16

not any and ALL variance = discharge of surety
The credit limit of the principal debtor which had been fixed by the Bank at Rs. 1 Lakh, was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and then again raised to Rs. 1 Lakh without consulting the surety.
This was done by oral instructions given to the cashier by the Bank Manager, and not by altering any document. The Supreme Court held that in this case, there was no variation in the terms of the contract within the meaning of Section 133.
Therefore, the surety cannot claim to be discharged.

variance must be substansive

Question 17

MS Anirudhan vs Thomco Bank

Answer 17

The alteration made in the contract by the principal debtor was not to the prejudice of the surety.an alteration which benefits the surety, or which is not to his prejudice, is not a material alteration.
Such an alteration being unsubstantial, does not discharge the surety from his liability.

so, if variance of contract benefits surety or is insubstantial

surety NOT discharged
similarly, Amritlal v travancore

Question 18

Sardar Kahn Singh vs Tek Chand Nanda

Answer 18

a composition was entered into between the creditor and the principal debtor, time was given to the principal debtor to make payment and all this was done without the assent and consent of the surety-appellant.
Therefore, from that moment onwards the liability of the surety became extinct and the only available remedy to the decree-holder remained against the principal debtor.
SEC135

Question 19

Dissolution of a company which was theprincipal debtor, death ofone ofthe sureties and the
creditor not proceeding against thecompany didnotdischarge theremaining sureties- forbearance to sue

Answer 19

Union
ofIndia v ModernStores India

Question 20

surety not discharged if variance is beneficial to surety

Answer 20

Anirudhan v Thomco bank ltd

principle debt changed from 25k to 20k

Question 21

State Bank of Saurashtra v Chitranjan Rangnath Raja sec 139

Answer 21

Abank granteda loan on the security ofthe stockin godown. The loan
was also guaranteed bya surety. The goods werelostfromthe godown on
account of the negligence of bank officials. The surety was discharged to the extent of the value of the stock so lost.^

Question 22

Mamata Ghose v United Industrial Bank

Answer 22

Right before payment-
Rights before payment Under the right of subrogation the surety may get certain rights even before payment. The Calcutta High Court examined this possibility in a case where the surety found, that the amount having become due, the prin cipal debtor was disposing of his personal properties one after the other lest the surety, after paying, may seize them and sought a temporary injunction to prevent the principal debtor from doing so. The court granted the injunc tion.

Question 23

Amritlal Goverdhan Lalan v State Bank ofTravancore

sec 140

Answer 23

the surety will be entitled to everyremedywhich the creditor had against the principal debtor; to enforce everysecurity and all means of payment; to stand in the place of the creditor;

Craythorne v Swinburne also classic caset

that the surety is entitled to
every remedy which the creditor has against the principal debtor, including
enforcement of every security

Question 24

specific guarantee case?

Answer 24

It was held that a guarantee for the conduct of a tenant in paying rent due under a tenancy agreement, whether it be a repeated payment or a single lump sum payment, is a guarantee for one transaction and hence a specific guarantee.

Hasan Ali vs Wali Ullah

Question 25

Union Bank of India vs TJ Stephen

Answer 25

The Kerala High Court held that in a continuing guarantee, the liability of the guarantor to pay remains alive, as long as the principal debtor does not clear the account.
As long as the debt is alive, the guarantor would be liable to pay.

continuing guarantee sec 129

Question 26

Hindustan Steel Works . vs Tarapor

Answer 26

A Bank Guarantee is an independent and distinct contract between the Bank and the beneficiary and is not qualified by the primary contract between the applicant and the beneficiary.
In an unconditional bank guarantee, the obligation of the Bank is absolute and is not dependent upon any dispute or proceeding between the applicant and the beneficiary.
The Courts should interfere only in exceptional cases, i.e., in case of fraud or if irretrievable injustice would result if a bank guarantee is allowed to be encashed.

bank guarantee

also Nangia construction case

Question 27

exceptions where court can restrain bank from performign its obligation in bank guarantee

Answer 27

The Supreme Court held that there are two exceptions where the court can restrain the Bank from performing its obligation under a Bank Guarantee towards the creditor, i.e.,
Fraud; and
Irretrievable Harm or Injustice.

**Bank of India vs Nangia Construction **

Question 28

State of Gujarat vs Memon Mahomed

Answer 28

Customs authorities confiscated goods of two trucks and turns out it was obtained by false representation that the vehicles were unclaimed. When owner went to claim goods- they had been disposed of and
The Supreme Court held that in this case there was bailment of vehicles even without an express contract.
After the Revenue Tribunal had set aside the order of confiscation and directed the return of the said vehicles to the plaintiff, the government had a duty to do so.
As the government had failed to return the vehicles, it was bound to pay compensation to the plaintiff.

Question 29

Ultzen vs Nicols

Answer 29

After the plaintiff entered the defendant’s restaurant, a waiter took his coat from him and hung it on a hook behind the plaintiff from where it got lost.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the value of his coat.
and it was determined that yes it was a case of bailment once the waiter took the coat out of owners possession.

bailment case

Question 30

Jagdish Chandra Trikha vs Punjab National Bank

Answer 30

bro kept box full of jewels in bank informed bank abt its contents and then later when came to retrieve it turns ot=ut it missing and determined bank played role of bailee and failed so now must compensate.

Question 31

hilton v tucker

Answer 31

The Chancery Division of the UK High Court held that handing over the keys of a godown by the bailor to the bailee amounts to constructive/symbolic delivery.

Question 32

bank bailment cases

bank locker

Answer 32

Atul Mehra vs Bank of Maharashtra-mere hiring of locker in bank by customer not equal to bailment under 148 , Jagdish Chandra Trikha vs Punjab National Bank,
National Bank of Lahore vs Sohan Lal - if one key is with owner and anotehr key is with bank and goods go missing then the real control over goods goes missing - so bank is liable specially since agent tampered with locks

also sec238 of ica- liability of principal bec of act of agent

Question 33

National Bank of Lahore vs Sohan Lal

Answer 33

f one key is with owner and anotehr key is with bank and goods go missing then the real control over goods goes missing - so bank is liable

Question 34

Wilson vs Anderson

Answer 34

It was held that a bailee can never be in a better position than his bailor.
Refusal on the part of the bailee to give up possession of the goods rightly claimed by a third party (owner) may make the bailee liable in an action for wrongful detention of goods.

Duty of Bailor when he has no Title (Section 164)

Question 35

Dwarkanath vs The River SN Company

Answer 35

It was held that a bailee is not an absolute insurer of the safety of the goods bailed with him.
He cannot be held liable for damage caused to the goods by circumstances beyond his control.

sec 152 Bailee not liable if he takes due care (Section 152)

Question 36

Mahendra Kumar Chandulal vs Central Bank of India

Answer 36

The appellant had pledged bales of cloth with the bank.
The respondent bailee (Bank) failed to take utmost care and, four bales of cloth went missing.
The Gujarat HC held that the bank is liable despite the absolving clause of all liability, as diluting the reasonable standard of care is against the meaning and intent of Section 151.

sec151, 152

Question 37

Union of India vs United India Fire Insurance

Answer 37

Cotton bales belonging to the consignee company were unloaded and kept outside the railway goods sheds and covered with a tarpaulin.
The company did not take delivery of the goods despite repeated requests and 13 days after unloading, the bales caught fire due to unknown reasons.
The railway staff took all possible steps to extinguish the fire but could not save the goods.

not liable bec situation out of their control

Question 38

Shaw & Co. vs Symmons & Co.

Answer 38

The plaintiff entrusted some books to the defendant, a book binder, for binding.
The defendant promised to deliver the books after binding within a reasonable time.
However, the defendant failed to deliver the books within a reasonable time and they were burnt in an accidental fire on his premises.
The defendant was held liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for the loss of books.

similarly Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. vs Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company
It was held that failure to perform the obligation of a bailee under a contract of Bailment makes the bailee liable, except when the loss is caused to the bailor due to an Act of God or Force Majeure

Question 39

Eduljee vs Café John Bros

Answer 39

seller sold 2nd hand fridge to buyer and buyer failed to pay, later bec of some issues, the friedge wnet back to seller to be fixed and seller wanted to excersise right of lein then, but couldnt.
It was held that the seller’s right of lien had come to an end when he had delivered the refrigerator to the buyer.
This right was not revived by getting back possession of some parts of the refrigerator. zsec170

Question 40

Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar

Answer 40

The Supreme Court observed that a Banker’s Lien on a customer’s negotiable securities has been judicially defined as an implied pledge.
It was further held that a Banker has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lien on all bills and cheques received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business in respect of any balance which may be due from such customer.

similarly nakulan v DGM, canara bank

but according to SBI v MP iron and steel - It was held that the deposit of money in a Bank by a customer does not create a relationship of bailor and bailee between the parties. Section 171 is confined to lien on bills of exchange, papers, securities, and other goods deposited with the Bank.

Question 41

Basant Kumar Mitter vs Kusum Kumar Mitter

advocate case

Answer 41

It was held that if a solicitor has not been discharged by his client, but he otherwise refuses to act for the client, or is unable to work for him (for ex: he stops his practice), the right of general lien available to him gets forfeited.

but accordinf to RD Saxena vs Balaram Prasad

It was held that Section 171 is applicable to “goods bailed”.
but Files and documents entrusted by a client to his Advocate are not “goods bailed” or “saleable goods” as defined in The Sale of Goods Act, 1930. so cannot have lien

Question 41

Basant Kumar Mitter vs Kusum Kumar Mitter

advocate case

Answer 41

It was held that if a solicitor has not been discharged by his client, but he otherwise refuses to act for the client, or is unable to work for him (for ex: he stops his practice), the right of general lien available to him gets forfeited.

but accordinf to RD Saxena vs Balaram Sharma

It was held that Section 171 is applicable to “goods bailed”.
but Files and documents entrusted by a client to his Advocate are not “goods bailed” or “saleable goods” as defined in The Sale of Goods Act, 1930. so cannot have lien

Question 42

Kaliaperumal Pillai v. Visalakshmi

Answer 42

In this case, the plaintiff hired the defendant to make new jewellery for her. Her old jewels had to be melted and the gold obtained from that was to be used to make this new jewellery. Every evening, the defendant would return the half-made jewellery to the plaintiff. Plaintiff would lock that jewellery in her box and leave it in the defendant’s room. However, the Plaintiff took the key to that box. One night, the jewels were stolen. The defendant was held liable by the plaintiff as he was the bailor of the goods. It was held that the respondent was not liable as he did not have legal possession of the goods while they were stolen. The relationship was of bailment between both the parties but it ended as soon as the plaintiff locked the goods in the box and took the keys with herself. Merely leaving the box at the defendant’s house does not constitute bailment.

Question 43

Revenue Authority Vs. Sundarsanam Pictures

Answer 43

• Facts: The producer of the film agreed to deliver fine prints of the film under production,
  when the same are ready to a financer in return of finances.
• Issue: Is this Valid Pledge?
• Held: No, as there is no actual or constructive delivery of Goods.

Question 44

Morvi Merchantile bank vs. Union of India

Answer 44

Facts: The firm borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Appellant bank and gave the railway
receipts of the goods which were in transit to constitute a security for the loan. The goods
were lost during the transit.
* Issue: Delivery of Railway receipts constitutes as valid pledge?
* Held: Yes. They are enough to constitute a delivery.

similarly in Purushotam Das Vs. Union of India ( with fake railway recie

Question 45

Kuri Lal Rungta vs. Banarasi Devi

Answer 45

Kuri Lal Rungta vs. Banarasi Devi ( AIR 1986 All. 94 )
* If certain securities have been deposited with the lender and it is further agreed that the
lender will have a right to lien over those securities, that does not debar the lender from
filing a suit against the borrower and obtaining a personal money decree against the
borrower

Question 46

Lallan Prasad v Rahmat Ali

Answer 46

The pawnor’s right to redeem is lost/extinguished only when
pawnee makes an actual sale of goods by the virtue of his right under
Section 176 of the Act.
When the pawnee files a suit for recovery of the debt, though he is entitled to retain the goods, he is bound to return them on the payment of the debt.

PAWNOR’S RIGHT TO REDEEM.

Question 47

pawnees right to descretion of sale of pledged goods as according to s176

Answer 47

Bank of Maharashtra v Racman Auto, State Bank of India
v Smt. Neela Ashok Naik, K.M Hiyatulla v Bank of India

pawnee has full descretion to sell or not to sell/keep goods

Question 48

Prabhat Bank Ltd. Vs Babu Ram

Answer 48

There was an agreement between the bank and the customer, authorizing the bank to
sell the securities pledged without any notice to the pawnor, if the credit balance of the
pawnor falls below a certain limit.
Held: It was held that such a provision is bad in law. It would be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Contract Act and would be void and unenforceable

Question 49

Central Bank of India v.s Grains and Gunny Agencies

Answer 49

Facts: Due to the negligence of the pledgee bank, the pledged goods were lost. The bank was
requested by the pawnor to sell away the goods and to realize the balance, but the bank
failed to do so. Moreover, now the bank was not in a position to redeliver the goods on the
satisfaction of its claims.
Issue: Was the bank liable for the loss of the goods or was it still in position to seek
claims against the pawnor?
Held: Bank was liable for the loss and was not entitled to succeed in claims against the
pawnor

Question 50

Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal Ltd v Govt of Hyderabad

Answer 50

An agent has the authority to act on behalf of his principal and to create contractual relations between the principal and a third party. This kind of power is not generally enjoyed by a servant.
2. A principal has the right to direct what the agent has to do; but a master has not only that right, but also the right to say how it is to be done. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master
3. servant will usually work for wages, and agent = comission
4. A master is liable for a wrongful act of his* servant* if it is committed in the course of the servant’s employment. A principal is liable for his agent’s wrong done within the “scope of
authority

Question 50

Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal Ltd v Govt of Hyderabad

Answer 50

An agent has the authority to act on behalf of his principal and to create contractual relations between the principal and a third party. This kind of power is not generally enjoyed by a servant.
2. A principal has the right to direct what the agent has to do; but a master has not only that right, but also the right to say how it is to be done. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master
3. servant will usually work for wages, and agent = comission
4. A master is liable for a wrongful act of his* servant* if it is committed in the course of the servant’s employment. A principal is liable for his agent’s wrong done within the “scope of
authority

Question 51

Loon Karan Sohan v John and co

Answer 51

just calling relationship agency not equal to actual agency and court must observe the actual nature of relationship as well

Question 52

smith v mosse

Answer 52

where a woman allowed her son to drive a car for her, she paying all the expenses of maintenance and
operation, it was held that the son was an implied agent of the mother and when he made a
collision injuring his wife, the wife could sue the mother for the fault of her agent. I

Question 53

Kasulu
v Commission, Endowments Deptt,

Answer 53

it was held that A husband has no original, inherent
or implied power to act as an agent for his wife. His authority can arise from an appointment
as agent, expressly or impliedly, or by ratification by his wife of acts done by him on her behalf.
Accordingly, a wife was held not liable on a contract made by her husband in her name and
without her authority when she disaffirmed the contract within reasonable time after getting to
know of it. A husband has no implied authority to sell his wife’s property

Question 54

In State of UP v Murari Lal & Bros Ltd

Answer 54

Where the plaintiff was claiming damages and relief for rent and other expense for space which
had been reserved in its cold storage by the company for the storage of Government potatoes but no potatoes had been sent for storage as the person who entered into contract on behalf of government was not duly authorised

Question 55

Watson v. Davies

Answer 55

an offer to sell the property was accepted by some
members of a charitable institution subject to the approval of the institution. Before the offer
could be finally accepted by the institution, it was withdrawn and it was held to be revocable.

Question 56

Pannalal Jankidas v Mohanlal

Answer 56

A commission agent purchased goods
for his principal and stored them in a godown pending their despatch. The agent was under
instruction to insure them. He actually charged the premium for insurance, but failed to insure
the goods. The goods were lost in an explosion in the Bombay harbour. Thus, in such cases the agent is held liable to the principal for the amount which would have
been recovered if the goods had been insured.

Question 57

Damodardas Agarwal v. R. Badrilal

Answer 57

when an agent sells his principal’s goods, he may detain
moneys received, for his remuneration on account of the goods sold by him. Such right can be
exercised by an advocate also but the lien must be confined to the costs incurred in that particular case.

sec217, 218

Question 58

Saraswati Devi v. Motilal

Answer 58

it has been held that if the parties have agreed
that the agent will be entitled to commission when he finds a purchaser, who is ready and
willing to purchase the property, the agent becomes entitled to the commission on doing that.
It does not matter that the principal refused to sell the property to the prospective purchaser or
the sale could not be completed because of the purchaser’s inability to find money

sec

Question 58

Saraswati Devi v. Motilal

Answer 58

it has been held that if the parties have agreed
that the agent will be entitled to commission when he finds a purchaser, who is ready and
willing to purchase the property, the agent becomes entitled to the commission on doing that.
It does not matter that the principal refused to sell the property to the prospective purchaser or
the sale could not be completed because of the purchaser’s inability to find money

sec217,218

Question 59

GOpal das v thakurdas##

Answer 59

The agent’s lien does not give
unrestricted authority to the agent to deal with the property in any manner the agent may like.
The right is limited in nature. It enables the agent to retain the property till his dues are paid.
But this confers no authority on the agent to sell or otherwise dispose of the property without the consent of the owner

sec217,218

Question 60

prem nath motors v anurag mittal

Answer 60

the principal called applications for
booking cars. The agent received applications with cheques drawn in favour of the principal. The claim of the petitioner was that he filed an application along with the cheque, but neither
he received the car nor refund. The plea of the agent that the liability was of the principal and not his was held to be proper.

Question 61

National Textile Corp Ltd v Nareshkumar

Answer 61

agent sued when
principal known, the agent challenged it before the Supreme Court for the first time.
Section 230 accordingly provides: In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot
personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally
bound by them.
Agent cannot sue or be sued unless contrary contract

Question 62

Popular Shoe Mart v k Srinivasa Rao

Answer 62

If the agency is created for a fixed period or continuous, the principal must give a reasonable
notice of revocation of agency to the agent. ( Section 206) The requirement of notice is mandatory

termination of agency sec201-210

Question 63

Gopaldas v Thakurdas

Answer 63

AGENTS lien doesnt give agent unristricted authority to deal w property however they like– it is limited in nature and allows agent to retain the properrty till the principal pays his dues.

sec217,218

Question 64

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP vs MP Electricity Board

Answer 64

the
question involved in this case was whether electric energy could be considered to be “goods”
for the purpose of Sales Tax. It was held that although electric energy is not tangible and cannot
be touched like a piece of wood or book, it still falls under the definition of “goods” as it can
be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, and possessed in the same way as any other
movable property.

similarly jabalopur cable v ESPN

section 2 SGA= any moveable property is under sales of goods act

Question 65

Jabalpur Cable vs ESPN India

Answer 65

The
MP High Court held that electronic TV signals are a form of energy just like electricity and fall
within the definition of goods which can be the subject matter of sale. Supplying Cable TV
Signals is a sale of goods as defined in Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Such
signals constitute movable property.

similarly, The Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP vs MP Electricity Board

Question 66

G Pillai v K.M Mani

Answer 66

dude wanted cow that got him specicif type of milk quality and mentioned that - the cow he was sold did not have it and cow is under sga so conditions breached

sec12, 16 of sga

Question 67

Nichol v. Godis

Answer 67

there was a sale of foreign refined rape-oil. The
delivered oil was the same as the sample but it was having a mixture of other oil too. It was
held in this case that the seller was liable to refund the amount paid.

section 15 sga

Question 68

Kailash Sharma vs Patna Municipal Corporation

Answer 68

dude bought a fogging machine to kill ants and did not pay or communicate w seller- USED IT for 6 months and then says ur machine is faulty im returning it and wont pay
HELD: liable to pay for the fogging
machines and they could not legitimately return the machines after using them for 6 months. Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, the act of receiving the machines after demonstration,
using them, and retaining them for a long-time amount to valid acceptance.

section 13- acceptance of goods by buyer and sec 42

Question 69

Antim Dubey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Answer 69

2018 :where the purchaser after obtaining the
delivery of a property has to pay either the entire or part consideration amount to the seller, if
not then the unpaid seller will have lien over the said property and under these circumstances,
it can be said that by not making the payment of remaining consideration amount and by
constantly using the property so delivered by the seller, the act of buyer would certainly amount
to criminal breach of trust because the position of the buyer would be that of trustee so long as
he does not pay the entire consideration amount.

section 47 sga

Question 70

Baldry v Marshall

Answer 70

dude said he wanted car for touring purpose merchant said this bughatti is good for that but turns out its horrible for that purpose so he can sue as it was a specific condition perhaps even under section 16 sga

Question 71

KD Kamath & Company vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Answer 71

per Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, “the business
of the firm should be conducted by all the partners or by any of the partners acting on
behalf of the others”. Hence, the principle of “agency” is implied here.
* In this case, though the authority to conduct and run the business is vested in the first
partner, K.D. Kamath, but he is acting for all the other partners and must do so in common interest of all

partnership act

Question 72

Cox vs Hickman

Answer 72

It was held that although the creditors were sharing the profits and the business was being
managed by the trustees, still the relation between Smith and Son on one hand and the creditors
(including trustees) on the other was that of debtor and creditor, and not that of partners.
Therefore, Cox and Wheatcroft could not be made liable.

sec6 of partnership

Question 73

Glorious Plastics Ltd v Laghate Enterprises

Answer 73

In this case, it
was held that if a partner retired on 1st April 1982 and the act of the firm was done on 1st March
1985, Section 25 cannot be applied to make such a retired partner liable for an act done after his retirement IF retirement notice is made public

Question 74

Dena Bank vs Bhikhabhai

Answer 74

in India, a government debt is not entitled to precedence over a prior secured debt.
* It was further held that the partners of a firm cannot be held individually liable for the
payment of sales tax assessed against the firm

Question 75

Shivagouda vs Chandrakant (AIR 1965 SC 212)

Answer 75

dude was minor and whle he was minor the firm became indebted to shivagouda and firm dissolved. Chand became major and didnt excersise right or put up notice of not becoming partner but STILL
HELD: not liable because he attained majority only after dissolution of firm

sec30 of indian partnership act

Question 76

Laiquiddin vs. Kamala Devi Misra

Answer 76

the death of
a partner automatically dissolves the firm of two members

sec35 indian partnership act

Question 77

Board of Revenue, UP vs Auto Sales, Allahabad

Answer 77

t on the retirement of a partner, even when his share
is determined and consideration is paid, a partner
has a right only to get his share of profits during the period that a partnership subsists and will
not have a personal control over the property

sec 37 of indian partnership

Question 78

Beacon Industries v/s Anupam Ghosh

Answer 78

unregistered firm complaints cannot come under indian partnership act but instead a private complaint for criminal matter- since the case was about a cheque bouncing which is criminal

Question 79

BK kapoor v Tajinder kapoor

Answer 79

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the petitioner is seeking the dissolution of firm on
just and equitable grounds as covered under Section 44 and not as per the terms of the partnership
deed. so even though there is an arbitration clause it is not applicable