Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Goculdas Madhavji vs Narsu Yenkuji on 13 September, 1889
In Goculdas Madhavji v. Narsu Yenkuji (1889) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 630, the decision proceeded on the intention of the parties deduced from the terms of the contract, and it was held that, looking to the nature of the contract, it must be taken to have been the intention ox the parties to it that the monthly payment was to be payable so long as the quarrying was permitted by the authorities. The case did not fall within Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.
Karl Ettlinger vs Chagandas And Co. on 6 August, 1915
According to the view of Beaman J. in Karl Ettlinger v. Chagandas & Co. (1915) I.L.R. 40 Bom. 301, s.c. 17 Bom. L.R. 1087, the performance of the contract in that case did not become impossible within the meaning of Section 56 merely because freights from Bombay to Antwerp were not procurable from a commercial point of view when the defendants repudiated the contract; and it was held that no implied condition could be road into the contract that it was agreed by the parties that normal freight conditions should continue, and that before a contract could be broken on the ground that the acts to be done had become impossible, the Courts must be very sure that they wore physically impossible, and that physical impossibility must go much further than mere difficulty or the need to pay exorbitant prices,
1