Scribd
Upload
446 views2 pages

P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar v. Express Newspapers

The parties had an oral agreement to vary an earlier contract for the sale of newsprint. The respondents took delivery of 300 tons of newsprint but the appellants refused delivery of the remaining balance. The respondents resold the balance at a lower price and claimed damages. The court held that since the specific 300 tons of sheets to be delivered had not been ascertained due to the variation in contract, property in the goods still lay with the respondents. Therefore, the resale was invalid and the respondents could only claim damages for the difference between the contract and market price on the date of breach.

Uploaded by

Chaitanya Goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
446 views2 pages

P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar v. Express Newspapers

The parties had an oral agreement to vary an earlier contract for the sale of newsprint. The respondents took delivery of 300 tons of newsprint but the appellants refused delivery of the remaining balance. The respondents resold the balance at a lower price and claimed damages. The court held that since the specific 300 tons of sheets to be delivered had not been ascertained due to the variation in contract, property in the goods still lay with the respondents. Therefore, the resale was invalid and the respondents could only claim damages for the difference between the contract and market price on the date of breach.

Uploaded by

Chaitanya Goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Vrinda Jhingan

20151367

P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.


(1968) 2 SCR 239: AIR 1968 SC 741

Facts
The respondents had agreed to buy from the appellants 500 tons of Russian newsprint
in reel at 9 annas per lb., ex-wharf, Bombay and to take delivery of the goods on
payment of Rs 5,60,000. The appellants agreed to buy from the respondents 415 tons
of Russian newsprint in sheets lying in a godown in madras at 9 annas 6 pies per lb.
on the condition that the appellants would pay the insurance charge and also interest
at 5 percent per annum on an amount equivalent to the price of the goods calculated at
8 annas per lb.
The accounts were to be adjusted with an understanding that the appellants within a
reasonable time take the delivery of the goods. Appellant 2 carried on business under
the name and style of madras paper marketing company.
An oral agreement was made between the parties on November 26, 1951 that the
respondent would buy 300 tons instead of 500 tons of newsprint in reels and the
appellants would buy 300 tons of newspaper print instead of 415 tons and the terms of
the initial contract would vary accordingly.
December 5, 1951, the respondent took delivery of 300 tons of newsprint in reels and
made a payment of Rs. 3,18,706-9-10 and a sum of Rs. 57,816-13-2 remained due to
the appellants on account of the price of the following goods.
After taking delivery of a part of the newsprint, the appellants refused to take delivery
of the balance and repudiated the contract on 29th March 1952. On 21st April the
respondent, after notice to the appellants resold the balance at a lesser rate.

Issue
Whether the property in the 300 tons of newspaper in sheets had passed to the
appellants before the resale?

Rule
Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act
Section 18 of the sale of goods act
Section 54(2) of the sale of goods act

Analysis
As the respondent was not a pledger of the newsprint, the respondent had no right to
sell goods under Section 176 of the Indian Contract act. 1872. A seller can claim as
damages the difference between the contract price and the amount realized on the

This study source was downloaded by 100000834999828 from CourseHero.com on 11-09-2022 05:00:37 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/61106587/PSNS-Ambalavana-Chettiar-v-Express-Newspapersdocx/
resale of goods, he has right of resale under Section 54(2) of the Indian Sale of Goods
Act, 1930. But this statutory power of resale arises only if the property in the goods
has passed to the buyer subject to the lien of the unpaid seller. Under Section 18 of the
Sale of good act, it is a condition precedent to the passing of property under a contract
of sale that the goods are ascertained. In the present case, when the contract was
originally entered into for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state and the
property in those goods then passed to the appellants. However, with the variation in
contract later on, the earlier contract was repudiated. Since, the 300 sheets had not
been ascertained that would pass to the appellant, the property in the sheets still lay
with respondents, hence resale was not valid.

Conclusion
The court held that the claim of the respondents for a difference of the price from the
resale is not valid. The respondents can only claim the difference of the contract price
and market price on the date of breach of contract.

This study source was downloaded by 100000834999828 from CourseHero.com on 11-09-2022 05:00:37 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/61106587/PSNS-Ambalavana-Chettiar-v-Express-Newspapersdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

You might also like