CASE LAWS

Amit Mishra Lecturer Amity Law School Amy.m1983@gmail.com

Case Laws of I Module

1. Adamson v Jarvis (1927)-

This case law deals with the contract of Indemnity. In this case, A on the instruction of Z sold some cattles belonging to B. B held A liable for it and recovered damages from him for selling it. Now, A can recover the loss from Z as a promise made by Z to A. Thus, the Z is indemnifier and A is indemnified. This case law deals with the suretys liability which is coextensive with the liability of principal debtor. In this case, the liability of a farmer who was the PD was scaled down under the Rajasthan Relief Act, 1957 and held that the liability of the surety would also be reduced or extinguished by that amount.

2. Narayan Singh v Chattarsingh-

3. Bank of Bihar v Damodar Prasad- This case law deals with the right of the

creditor who can sue the surety without exhausting the remedies against the principal debtor. In this case, the Apex court held that the bank is at liberty to recover the loan amount jointly and severally from the defendants (PD or Surety).

4. Jagdish Chandra Trikha v. Punjab National Bank (1998)- This

case deals with the bailment and particularly the duties of the bailee. In this case, the court held that the position of the bank was that of the bailee and it failed in its duty to take care of the goods and return them to the plaintiff. The bank was held liable to pay the sum of Rs. 3,72,400 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
5. Ultzen v. Nicols (1894)- This case law deals with the duties of the

bailee. In this case, the plaintiff entered the restaurant, a waiter took the plaintiffs coat from him without being requested to do so, and hung it on a hook behind the plaintiff. But, when the plaintiff wanted to leave, he found that the coat had been lost. The court held that the defendant was the bailee of the coat as his servant has assumed the possession of the same and therefore he was liable for its loss which was due to his negligence.

8.

Kaliaporumal Pillai v. Visalakshmi (1938)- This case law deals with the bailment. In this case law, the court held that, if the owner maintains control over the goods, there is no Bailment. Atul Mehra v Bank of Maharashtra (2003)- This case law deals with the bailment. In this case law, the court held that, hiring of locker in the Banks is not bailment. with the bailment. In this case law, the court held that there can be Bailment without a contract- For example: Finder of goods is treated as bailee.

9.

10. State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed (1967)- This case law deals

10. Revenue Authority v. Sudarshan Pictures- This case law deals with

the pledge. In this case, A film-producer borrowed Rs 1 crore from a

financier-distributor and agreed to deliver the final prints of the film when ready. This agreement was not a pledge because there was no actual transfer of possession.

Case Laws of II Module

1.

2.

3.

Sim and Co. v Midland Rly Co.- This case law deals with the creation of agency by necessity. In this case, P consigned A some fruits and vegetables from Delhi to Mumbai by a truck. The truck met with an accident. The consignment was sold by A due to its perishable nature. Thus, the sale is binding on P. Bolton Partner v. Lambert- This case law deals with the creation of agency by ratification. In this case, A the managing director of a company, without prior authority from the company accepted an offer made by T. Later, T revoked the offer but the company ratified As acceptance. It was held that T is bound by ratification because ratification related back to the time of As acceptance. Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal- This case law deals with duty of an agent to act according to the directions given by the principal. In this case, An agent A, instructed to insure the goods, failed to do so and the goods were destroyed by fire. A was liable to compensate his principal for the loss suffered by him.

4. Luxor Eastbourne Ltd. v. Cooper- This case law

deals with the right of remuneration of an agent. In this case, the court held that the agent was not entitled to remuneration because the sale had not been completed. 5. Sheikh Farid Baksh v. Hargulal Singh- This case law deals with the right of remuneration of an agent. In this case, the court held that the agent was entitled to remuneration because he did what he was required to do, i.e to introduce a customer to buy the principal property.

Case Law of III Module

1.

2.

3.

Shelden v. Cox- This case law deals with the essential of the Price in sale of goods act. In this case law, the court held that the consideration may be partly in money and partly in goods because the law doesnt prohibit as such. Smith v. Hughes- This case law deals with the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor. In this case, B bought oats from S a sample of which had been shown to B. B erroneously thought that the oats were old. The oats were, however new. Held, B could not avoid the contract. Ward v. Hobbs- This case law deals with the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor. In this case, Pigs were sold subject to all faults and the seller knew that the pigs were suffering from swine-fever but he didnt inform the buyer about this defect. The seller was not liable for damages because there was no implied warranty.

4.

5.

Leo v. Byes- This case law deals with the Doctrine of Nemo Dat Qui Non Habet i.e No one can convey a better title than the seller himself. In this case, there were three persons T, A and B. T stole a car and delivered it to A, an auctioneer. A sold the car to B at auction. It was held that B obtained no title to the car because T had no title to it. Folkes v. King- This case law deals with the Sec 27 of the Sale of Goods Act i.e Sale by Mercantile Agent. It means if the goods are sold by the mercantile agent then the buyer will get a good title. In this case, P the owner of a car instructed to an agent A to sell his car at not less than Rs 1 lakh. But A sold the car to B for Rs. 90000 and misappropriated the money. B acted in good faith and without notice of the above instruction to agent. Here, B got a good title to the car and the real owner P cant recover the car from B.

6. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. (1936)This case law deals with the exceptions of Doctrine of Caveat Emptor (which means Lets the buyer beware). In this case, the plaintiff purchased a T-Shirt from a retailer who dealt in that type of goods. The t-shirt contained certain chemicals (i.e free sulphite) and he contracted dermatitis by wearing them. Since the t-shirt in question was intended to be worn next to skin as had been done by the buyer, there was no need to expressly specify the purpose for which the buyer required them. Thus, buyer had made known to the seller, impliedly, the purpose for which he wanted the garments and relied on the sellers skill or judgement. Thus the privy council held that there was breach of implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for a certain purpose, and as such, seller liable to the buyer in damages. Also held that because of such a defect, the t-shirt was not of merchantable quality.

Case Law of IV Module

1. Martyn v. Grag- This case law deals with the Partnership by Estoppel or Holding Out. In this case, Bhagat a sole proprietor of KG Bhagat & Co. employed Ehraz as manager. Ehraz enters into an agreement with Mr. S, a supplier of goods as the partner of KG Bhagat & Co. in the presence of Bhagat. Bhagat remained silent and as a result treating Ehraz a partner, S supplied the goods of Rs.50000 on credit. Bhagat failed to pay the price of goods. S filed a suit against both Bhagat and Ehraz for the recovery of the price. The Court held, that here Ehraz is liable as a partner by holding out and liable to pay the price of the goods. If Ehraz doesnt pay then Bhagat is bound to pay the price of S.

2.

Shivaram v. Gaurishanker- This case law deals with the capacity of partners. In this case, the court held that the there cant be a partnership consisting of all the minors or of one major and all other minors. Abbot v. Grump (1870)- This case law deals with the dissolution of the firm by an order of the court on the ground of Misconduct under sec 44(c). In this case. The court ordered the firm to be dissolved on account of adultery committed by one partner against the wife of the other partner. Dissolution was ordered as such act of adultery would adversely affect the mutual trust and confidence among partners.

3.

4.

Garner v. Murray (1904)- This case law deals with the settlement of accounts between the partners after the dissolution of a firm. If one or more partners become insolvent and they are not able to contribute their share of the loss, the solvent partners are not bound to contribute for the share of the insolvent partners.
For example: A, B and C are partners in a partnership firm and agree to share the profit and losses in equal ratio. Later on, C becomes insolvent and is unable to pay the debts of the firm. Now, the solvent partners are not liable to pay the share of C.

THANKS!