Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(13) In Harichand Mancharan v. Govind Luxman Gokhale, Law Reports 50 I.A. 25 the terms of the contract had been agreed to between the parties and the very first condition of the contract was that "the bargain paper in respect of the sale of the said immovable property shall be made through a vakil within two days from this day". Accordingly formal documents were prepared by the defendant's solicitors in which certain additional terms were inserted which could not be agreed to by the plaintiff. It was argued for the defendant that there was no concluded contract till the formal bargain paper was signed by the parties. This contention was rejected by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who held at page 31 of the report that "the parties had come to a definite and complete agreement on the subject of the sale; they embodied in the documents that were exchanged the principal terms of the bargain on which they were in absolute agreement, and regarding which they did not contemplate any variation or change; the reservation in respect of a formal document to be prepared by a vakil only means that it should be put into proper shape and in legal phraseology, with any subsidiary terms that the vakil might consider necessary for insertion in a formal document". In Shankarlal Narayandas v. New Maffussil Company, Ltd., Law Reports 73 I.A. 98 an oral offer for the sale of a pressing and ginning mill was accepted with the stipulation that there were to be other usual terms which were to be incorporated in an agreement to be drafted by the solicitors. The question was whether the acceptance concluded the contract or whether the contract was to come into effect only when the other usual terms along with the agreed terms were to be incorporated into a formal document drafted by the solicitors. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reversed the decision of the High Court and held at page 108 that "the facts do not support the inference that the parties intended to be bound only when a formal agreement had been executed. On the contrary, their Lordships consider that there was ample evidence to prove that both parties intended to make, and believed that they had made, a binding oral agreement. Their desire and intention to put that agreement into formal shape does not affect its validity".