Law of contract – 2 (part –C)

1.Mohan Lal delivers diamonds to Neel Kamal on sale or return basis. Neel Kamal delivers the
diamonds to Om Prakash on sale or return. An unknown person takes away the diamonds from
Om Prakash. Can Mohan Lal file a case against Neel Kamal for the price of the diamonds?s

In this scenario, Mohan Lal can potentially file a case against Neel Kamal for the price of the diamonds
under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Under Section 25 of the Contract Act, when goods are delivered by one person to another on a "sale or
return" basis, it implies that the person delivering the goods is willing to transfer ownership to the person
receiving the goods, but the ownership will only be transferred when the goods are accepted or
approved.

However, for Mohan Lal to be able to file a case against Neel Kamal, certain conditions need to be met:

1. The diamonds must have been delivered to Neel Kamal on a "sale or return" basis, meaning that the
ownership of the diamonds would be transferred to Neel Kamal upon acceptance or approval.

2. Neel Kamal must have failed to return the diamonds within the agreed-upon time period, or without
providing any valid reason for not returning them.

3. Mohan Lal must have demanded the return of the diamonds from Neel Kamal before filing the case or
made a reasonable effort to do so.

It is also important to note that the jurisdiction of the court in such cases would depend on the value of
the diamonds involved. If the value exceeds the jurisdiction of the lower courts, Mohan Lal would need to
file the case in the appropriate higher court.

One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Another (2002) 5 SCC 365.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the concept of sale on approval or return. The court
observed that when goods are delivered on a sale or return basis, the property in the goods passes to the
buyer on delivery, but the buyer has the right to return the goods within a specified time if they do not
meet his approval or satisfaction.

The court further ruled that if the goods are not returned within the agreed-upon time or without any
valid reason, the buyer is deemed to have accepted them and the seller is entitled to the price of the
goods.

This case law can be relevant in the present scenario where Mohan Lal has delivered diamonds to Neel
Kamal on a sale or return basis. If Neel Kamal fails to return the diamonds within the agreed-upon time or
without any valid reason, Mohan Lal may be entitled to claim the price of the diamonds from Neel Kamal
based on the principle established in this case.

2.A agrees to indemnify 'B', a newspaper proprietor, against claims arising out of the libel printed in the
newspaper concerning a person of repute. Is this a valid agreement?
Yes, the agreement between A and B to indemnify B against claims arising from a libel printed in the
newspaper concerning a person of repute can be considered a valid agreement under the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.

In this case, A agrees to provide indemnity or compensation to B if B incurs legal liabilities or expenses
due to the libel printed in the newspaper. This type of agreement falls under the category of "contract of
indemnity" which is recognized by law.

Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act defines a contract of indemnity as a contract in which one party
promises to compensate the other party for any loss or damage suffered by them. Such contracts are
valid and enforceable if they are not opposed to public policy.

In this scenario, the agreement between A and B to indemnify B against claims arising from libel is not
opposed to public policy unless it involves malicious intention or promotes unlawful activities. If the
agreement is entered into with bona fide intention and the indemnity is reasonable, it can be considered
a valid agreement.

However, if the libelous statements are made with the intention to harm the reputation of the person
involved, it may attract legal consequences and the validity of the agreement might be challenged. It is
always advisable to consult with a lawyer to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law and to
protect the interests of both parties involved.

One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Sri Tarsem Singh vs M/s
Sriwanti Suresh Kumar and Anr (1999) 7 SCC 473.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the enforcement of an agreement of indemnity. The
court observed that an agreement to indemnify is a valid and enforceable contract under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. The court further held that an indemnity contract is a contract to safeguard one party
against legal liability or loss that may arise on the occurrence of a specified event.

In the context of libel, the court highlighted that an agreement to indemnify against claims arising from a
libelous publication can be legally enforceable unless it is against public policy. The court emphasized that
public policy considerations come into play when the indemnity is against illegal or immoral acts or when
it aims to protect unlawful activities.

Based on the principles established in this case, it can be inferred that an agreement to indemnify a
newspaper proprietor against libel claims concerning a person of repute can be considered valid unless it
violates public policy or involves malicious intent. It is important to ensure that the agreement is entered
into in good faith and does not go against the principles of law.

3.G' Contracts with H to buy 50 easy chains of a certain quality. H delivers 25 chairs of the type agreed
upon and 25 chairs of some other type. Does 'G' reject the chairs?

Whether 'G' can reject the chairs delivered by 'H' would depend on the terms of the contract between
them and the nature of the non-conforming delivery. If the contract explicitly stated that 'G' agreed to
purchase 50 easy chairs of a specific quality, and 'H' delivered 25 chairs of the agreed-upon type and 25
chairs of a different type, 'G' may have the right to reject the chairs that do not conform to the agreed-
upon specifications.
Under the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Section 14 states that unless otherwise agreed upon, the goods
delivered must correspond with the description or sample provided. If the delivered goods do not match
the ones described in the contract, it may be considered a breach of contract.

In this situation, the delivery of 25 chairs of a different type than what was agreed upon can be seen as a
non-conforming delivery, as 'H' did not fulfill the contract's requirements. 'G' may have the right to reject
the non-conforming chairs and demand the delivery of the remaining 25 easy chairs of the agreed-upon
quality.

However, it is essential to review the contract terms, any specific provisions related to non-conforming
goods, and any communications or agreements between 'G' and 'H' regarding the issue.

One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Abdul Rahim Khan vs. Yar
Muhammad Khan (AIR 1932 All 484).

In this case, the Allahabad High Court discussed the concept of partial performance of a contract and the
buyer's right to reject non-conforming goods. The court observed that if the goods delivered by the seller
do not conform to the agreed specifications, it amounts to a breach of contract, and the buyer has the
right to reject the non-conforming goods.

In the present scenario, if 'H' delivers 25 chairs of a different type than what was agreed upon, it can be
considered a breach of contract. Based on the principle established in the mentioned case law, 'G' may
have the right to reject the non-conforming chairs and refuse to accept them.

However, it is important to carefully examine the contract terms and any specific provisions related to
partial performance or acceptance of non-conforming goods. The court's decision will ultimately depend
on the interpretation of the contract, the circumstances of the case, and any applicable laws.

4.Raju, a partner of a firm, borrows money on his own credit by giving his own promissory note for the
same, but he subsequently uses the proceeds of the note in the partnership concern of his own free will
without any reference to the lender to do so. Is the firm liable for the loan?

In the scenario described, the firm may not be automatically liable for the loan made by Raju using his
own credit and promissory note, unless there is evidence of an explicit or implied authority given to Raju
by the firm to borrow funds on its behalf.

Under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 19 states that a firm is bound by the acts of its partners if
they are acting in the ordinary course of the firm's business or with authority conferred by the firm. If
Raju borrowed the money and used it for the partnership's benefit, without prior authority or consent
from the firm or other partners, it may not create automatic liability for the firm.

However, it is important to consider any specific provisions in the partnership agreement or any past
dealings between the lender and the firm, which may indicate that Raju had the authority to borrow
funds on behalf of the firm. In such circumstances, the firm may still be held liable for the loan.

One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Dharamdas Hargovind Das vs.
Ebrahim Rahimtoola & Ors. (AIR 1961 SC 1285).
In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the liability of a partnership firm for the acts and
obligations of its partners. The court observed that a partnership firm is bound by the acts of its partners
if those acts are done in the ordinary course of partnership business or with the authority of the firm.

The court further held that the firm is not liable for the acts of a partner if those acts are unrelated to the
ordinary course of partnership business or have not been authorized by the firm. Each partner has a
general authority to bind the firm only in matters connected with the conduct of the partnership
business.

Applying this case law to the scenario mentioned, if Raju borrowed money on his own credit and used the
proceeds for the partnership concern without any reference or authority from the firm or other partners,
the firm may not be automatically liable for the loan. Raju's act may be considered as an individual act
outside the scope of the partnership business and without the authority of the firm.

However, it is important to consider all relevant facts, including the partnership agreement, prior
dealings, and any specific authority conferred to Raju. If there is evidence of explicit or implied authority
given to Raju by the firm to borrow funds on its behalf, the firm may still be held liable for the loan.

5.'A' lends a horse to B for his own riding. B allows Camember of his family to ride the horse. 'C' rides with
care, but the horse accidently falls and is injured. Decide.

In the scenario described, 'A' lent a horse to 'B' for his own riding, but 'B' allowed a member of his family
('C') to ride the horse. 'C' rode the horse carefully, but unfortunately, the horse accidentally fell and got
injured.

In this situation, 'B' can potentially be held liable for the injury to the horse, even if 'C' rode the horse with
care. The reason for this is that when 'A' lent the horse to 'B' for his own riding, it implies that 'B' was
responsible for the proper care, control, and supervision of the horse during the agreed-upon period.

Under the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur', which means "the thing speaks for itself," if an accident or injury
occurs that wouldn't typically happen unless someone was negligent, there is a presumption of
negligence. In this case, the fact that the horse fell and got injured while it was under the control of 'B'
and his family member creates a presumption of negligence on the part of 'B'.

It is important to note that the actual determination of liability would depend on the specific
circumstances of the accident, any applicable laws, and any contracts or agreements between the parties
involved. If there are any specific exemptions or protections provided by law, it might affect the liability of
'B'.
One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

In this case, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom discussed the principle of strict liability in relation to the
escape of dangerous substances from one's land, resulting in damage to another party. While not directly applicable
to the scenario described, the case provides insights into the principle of liability when it comes to the actions of
individuals and liability for injuries caused.

The case established the principle that the person who brings or keeps something on their land that is likely to cause
damage if it escapes onto another's land or harms another person can be held liable for resulting damages. This
principle is often referred to as the Rylands v Fletcher rule or the rule of strict liability.
However, it is essential to note that this case law might not directly apply to the situation described, as the facts
involve a horse riding accident and not a dangerous substance escape case. Nonetheless, it provides an
understanding of the principle of liability and how it may apply in different situations.

6.X' Helds a lease from Y, terminable on 3 months' notice. Z', an authorized person, gives a notice of termination to
X. Can the notice be ratified by Y.

In the given scenario, 'X' holds a lease from 'Y', which is terminable on 3 months' notice. The notice of termination is
given by 'Z', who is an authorized person, to 'X'. The question of whether the notice can be ratified by 'Y' depends on
the nature of the authority given to 'Z' and the terms of the lease agreement.

If 'Z' is authorized by 'Y' to give notice of termination on their behalf, then 'Y' can ratify the notice given by 'Z'.
Ratification refers to the acceptance or confirmation of an act that was originally unauthorized. If 'Y' accepts or
confirms the notice given by 'Z', it validates the notice and makes it effective.

However, it is crucial to review the lease agreement and any specific terms or conditions regarding the termination
of the lease. The terms of the lease may stipulate the requirements for notice of termination, including who can give
such notice on behalf of 'Y'. If the lease agreement does not authorize or contemplate notice of termination being
given by 'Z', then the notice given by 'Z' may not be valid or effective unless 'Y' acknowledges or accepts it.

Ultimately, the ability of 'Y' to ratify the notice given by 'Z' will depend on the specific circumstances, the lease
agreement, and any applicable laws or contractual provisions.

To ensure a proper interpretation and understanding of the lease agreement and the legal implications, it is
advisable to consult with a lawyer who can review the relevant documents and provide accurate advice based on
the specific details of the case.

which section applies according to contracts

In the given scenario, the relevant section of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would be Section 196.

Section 196 of the Act states that any act done by a person as an agent, after the termination of his authority,
cannot be ratified by the principal. In other words, if 'Z' gives notice of termination as an authorized person to 'X' on
behalf of 'Y', but his authority has already

7.'A' stands as a surety for the good conduct of 'B'. Who is employed in a cooperative society 'B'. Misappropriates
some money. The Bank excuses him without informing 'A of B's misconduct, B' again misappropriates Rs. 50,000/-
the society files a suit against A' on the strength of the guarantee. Decide giving reasons.

In this case, 'A' stands as a surety for the good conduct of 'B' who is employed in a cooperative society. If 'B'
misappropriates some money, it is a breach of trust and a violation of his duties towards the cooperative society.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs suretyship agreements in India. Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act
defines a contract of guarantee, which states that a person who gives a guarantee is called the surety, and the
person for whom the guarantee is given is called the principal debtor.

In this case, 'A' has given a guarantee (or a surety) for the good conduct of 'B'. As per Section 128 of the Indian
Contract Act, the surety is discharged from liability when the creditor (in this case, the cooperative society) makes
any alteration in the terms of the contract without the surety's consent.

In this scenario, the bank excuses 'B' without informing 'A' of 'B's misconduct. By not informing 'A' of 'B's
misconduct, the bank has made an alteration in the terms of the contract between 'A' and the society without 'A's
consent. Therefore, 'A' is discharged from liability as a surety for 'B's conduct.
However, if the cooperative society files a suit against 'A' on the strength of the guarantee, 'A' can defend himself by
citing Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act. 'A' can argue that the bank's failure to inform him of 'B's misconduct
has discharged him from his liability as a surety.

The jurisdiction to hear this case will depend on the amount of claim made by the cooperative society against 'A'. If
the claim is below Rs. 20 lakhs, the case can be filed before the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area where the
cooperative society is located. If the claim exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs, the case can be filed before the District Court or the
High Court, depending on the specific jurisdiction mentioned in the statute.

In conclusion, 'A' is discharged from liability as a surety due to the bank's failure to inform him of 'B's misconduct. 'A'
can defend himself against the cooperative society's suit on the basis of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act. The
jurisdiction to hear this case will depend on the amount of the claim filed by the cooperative society.

One relevant case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Baijnath Sahay v. Ramjanam Marwari &
Ors, (1991) 3 SCC 408. In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the principle that a surety is discharged
from liability if there is any alteration in the terms of the contract between the creditor and principal debtor without
the surety's consent.

The court held that if the creditor alters the terms of the contract or grants any indulgence to the principal debtor
without the surety's knowledge and consent, it discharges the surety from his liability. In such a situation, the surety
cannot be held liable for the default of the principal debtor.

Applying this case law to the given scenario, if the cooperative society grants forgiveness or excuses 'B' without
informing 'A' of 'B's misconduct, it can be argued that 'A' is discharged from liability as surety. The cooperative
society cannot file a suit against 'A' based on the guarantee, as the alterations in the contract without 'A's consent
have discharged him from his responsibilities.

8.D' a carrier discovers that a consignment of tomatoes owned by E' has deteriorated badly before the destination is
reached. He, therefore, sells that consignment for about a third of the market price. 'E' sues 'D' for damages. Decide

In this scenario, 'D' is a carrier who discovers that a consignment of tomatoes owned by 'E' has deteriorated badly
before reaching its destination. As a result, 'D' sells the consignment for about a third of the market price. 'E' then
decides to sue 'D' for damages.

In order to determine the liability of 'D', we can refer to the Indian Carriers Act, 1865. This Act governs the rights and
liabilities of carriers in relation to the transportation of goods.

Under Section 9 of the Carriers Act, a carrier is bound to deliver the goods in the same condition as it was received,
except for any unavoidable damage or deterioration that may have occurred during the ordinary course of transit. If
the goods have deteriorated or have been damaged due to the carrier's negligence or misconduct, the carrier can
be held liable for the damages.

In this case, 'D' as a carrier has a duty to deliver the consignment of tomatoes owned by 'E' in the same condition as
they were received, as long as any damage or deterioration is not unavoidable during the ordinary course of transit.
However, it is stated that the consignment has deteriorated badly before reaching its destination.

By selling the consignment for a significantly lower price, 'D' has arguably failed in his duty to deliver the goods in
the same condition as received, unless the deterioration was unavoidable during the ordinary course of transit.
Therefore, 'E' may have grounds to sue 'D' for damages caused by 'D's negligence or misconduct.

The measure of damages in such a case will depend on various factors such as the market value of the consignment,
the actual sale price, and any additional reasonable expenses incurred by 'E' due to the loss suffered. 'E' is entitled
to claim these damages from 'D' for the loss suffered.
The jurisdiction to hear this case will depend on the amount of damages claimed by 'E'. If the claim is below the
specified jurisdictional limit, it can be filed before the appropriate Civil Court. If the claim exceeds the jurisdictional
limit, it can be filed before the District Court or the High Court, depending on the specific statutory provisions.

One related case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Maula Bux v Union of India, AIR 1969 SC
907. In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the liability of carriers for the deterioration of goods while in
transit.

The court held that a carrier is liable for damages if the deterioration of goods is a result of his negligence or
misconduct. The carrier has a duty to take reasonable care of the goods entrusted to him and ensure their safe
delivery. If the goods suffer damage or deterioration due to the carrier's failure to exercise reasonable care, the
carrier can be held liable for the resulting damages.

Applying this case law to the given scenario, 'D' as the carrier of the consignment of tomatoes owned by 'E' has the
duty to exercise reasonable care in transporting and delivering the goods. If it can be established that 'D' failed to
exercise reasonable care, resulting in the deterioration of the tomatoes, 'D' can be held liable for the damages
suffered by 'E'.

The measure of damages would depend on the actual loss suffered by 'E' as a result of the deterioration of the
consignment. This can include the difference between the market value of the tomatoes and the price at which they
were sold by 'D', as well as any additional expenses incurred by 'E' due to the loss of the consignment.

9.A gives silk to B a tailor, to be stitched into a coat. B promises A to deliver the coat as soon as it is made and to give
'A' three months credit for the charges. Is B entitled to retain the Coat until the charges are paid.

In the given scenario, where A gives silk to B, a tailor, to be stitched into a coat, and B promises to deliver the coat as
soon as it is made and provide A with three months credit for the charges, the question arises whether B is entitled
to retain the coat until the charges are paid.

To determine the entitlement of B to retain the coat, we need to consider the principles outlined in the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

According to Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, in cases where a party has promised to do something upon the
condition that the other party performs an act, and the other party fails to perform that act, the party making the
promise is discharged from the performance of the promise if it was the intention of both parties that the act should
be performed.

In this case, the promise made by B to deliver the coat as soon as it is made is conditional upon A paying the
charges. Therefore, if A fails to make payment for the charges as agreed, B would be within his rights to refuse
delivery of the coat until payment is made.

Additionally, Section 100 of the Indian Contract Act provides that if A delivers goods to B for a specific purpose and it
is agreed that B will retain the goods until certain conditions are fulfilled (such as payment of charges), B would be
entitled to retain possession of the goods until those conditions are satisfied.

Based on these provisions, B would be entitled to hold the coat until the charges for stitching the coat are paid by A.
By agreeing to provide three months credit, B has extended a time frame for A to make the payment, but this does
not waive the right to receive the payment before delivering the coat.

Please note that the specific circumstances and any additional factors or terms agreed upon in the contract may
impact the application of the law. Consulting with a qualified lawyer to analyze the specific contract and
circumstances is recommended for accurate legal advice.
One case law that can be referred to in this scenario is the case of Patel Haribhai Harjibhai v. Patel Dayabhai
Ranchhodbhai, AIR 1968 Guj 63. In this case, the Gujarat High Court dealt with a similar situation where a tailor
retained the stitched clothes until the charges were paid.

In this case, the court held that a tailor has a right to retain the clothes until the payment of charges is made. The
tailor has a lien over the clothes for the payment of charges. The court further stated that the right to retain the
clothes arises even if there is an agreement to give credit for a certain period.

Applying this case law to the given scenario, B, as the tailor, would be entitled to retain the coat until the charges for
the stitching are paid. This right arises from the tailor's lien over the coat for the payment of charges, even if there is
an agreement for credit.

10.A' enters into a contract with 'B' for buying B's cat as agents for 'C' without B's authority. Repudiates the contract
before 'C' comes to know it. 'C' subsequently ratifies the contract and gives to enforce it. Advise B.

In the given scenario, where 'A' enters into a contract with 'B' to buy B's cat as an agent for 'C' without B's authority,
but 'A' repudiates the contract before 'C' comes to know of it, and 'C' subsequently ratifies the contract and wants
to enforce it, the advice to 'B' would be as follows:

1. Dispute the validity of the contract: As 'A' entered into the contract without the authority or consent of 'C', 'B' can
dispute the validity of the contract on the grounds of lack of authority. 'B' can argue that without the principal's
authorization, 'A' did not have the legal capacity to enter into the contract on behalf of 'C'. Therefore, 'B' can
contend that the contract is void ab initio.

2. Consider the legal consequences of ratification: 'C' subsequently ratifying the contract means that 'C' is adopting
and affirming the contract entered into by 'A' on their behalf. Ratification has retrospective effect, and it validates
the contract as if it had been entered into with 'C's prior knowledge and authorization. 'B' should understand that by
ratifying the contract, 'C' seeks to bind themselves to the terms of the agreement.

3. Assess the impact of repudiation: Even though 'A' repudiated the contract before 'C' came to know about it, the
act of repudiation could still have legal consequences. 'B' should consult with a lawyer to understand the specific
laws and legal principles that govern repudiation in contracts, such as anticipatory breach and its implications on
enforcing the contract.

4. Seek legal advice: To understand the specific rights and options available, 'B' should consult with a qualified
lawyer experienced in contract law. The lawyer will assess the facts of the case, applicable laws, and any relevant
contractual terms or exceptions that may apply. The lawyer can provide tailored advice on the potential legal
remedies or defenses that 'B' can pursue based on the circumstances.

1. Section 182: This section deals with agency by ratification. It states that if a person purports to contract as an
agent, but does not have the necessary authority or consent at the time of making the contract, the principal can
ratify or adopt the contract after acquiring knowledge of the same. Ratification has a retrospective effect, and the
contract will be considered as valid as if it was entered into with the principal's authorization from the beginning.

2. Section 196: This section defines the concept of anticipatory breach of contract. If a party to a contract indicates
in advance that they will not perform their contractual obligations, it amounts to an anticipatory breach. It gives the
aggrieved party the right to consider the contract as repudiated and pursue legal remedies for damages or other
relief.

In the given scenario, 'A' repudiates the contract before 'C' comes to know of it. This repudiation may be considered
as an anticipatory breach by failing to perform the contract as agreed. Upon 'C' subsequently ratifying the contract,
it validates the contract and seeks to enforce it.
11.A sold 100 quintals of groundnut oil to B. Before it could be delivered to 'B' the Govt. of India requisitioned the
whole quantity lying with 'A' in public interest. B' wants to sue 'A' for breach of contract. Advise B.

In the given scenario, where A sold 100 quintals of groundnut oil to B but before the delivery could take place, the
Government of India requisitioned the entire quantity in public interest, B may not be able to sue A for breach of
contract.

The concept of frustration of contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, may come into play here. Frustration of
contract occurs when an unforeseen event happens after the formation of the contract, making it impossible to
perform the contract. In such cases, the contract becomes void.

In this case, the requisition of the groundnut oil by the government can be considered as an unforeseen event that
has made the performance of the contract impossible. As a result, the contract can be said to be frustrated, and
neither party can be held liable for non-performance.

However, it is essential to thoroughly review the terms and conditions of the contract to determine if there are any
clauses that address unforeseen events or force majeure situations. Such clauses, if present, may influence the
rights and obligations of the parties involved.

One significant case in this regard is the case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., (1954) SCR 310. In
this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the doctrine of frustration and laid down certain principles related
to it.

The court held that frustration of contract occurs when an unforeseen event renders the performance of the
contract impossible and making it radically different from what the parties had intended. The event should be
beyond the control of the parties and not due to their own default or negligence.

In the case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., the court emphasized that when a contract becomes
impossible to perform due to an unforeseen event, it stands discharged, and neither party can be held liable for
non-performance.

12.A' of Agra ordered certain specified goods from B' of Bombay. B' sends the goods, not ordered, along with them.
What should 'A' do?

In the given scenario, where A of Agra ordered certain specified goods from B of Bombay but B sends additional
goods that were not originally ordered, A has a few options:

1. Contact B: A should reach out to B and inform them about the incorrect shipment. A should clearly communicate
that the additional goods were not ordered and request a resolution.

2. Review the terms and conditions: A should review the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement or any
contractual documents that were agreed upon between A and B. It is important to see if there are any provisions
related to erroneous shipments or unwanted goods.

3. Return the goods: A can choose to return the additional goods to B. A should ensure that the goods are properly
packaged and sent back to B. It is advisable to keep a record of the return, such as proof of delivery or tracking
information.

4. Seek legal advice: If the matter cannot be resolved amicably between A and B, A may seek legal advice from a
lawyer specializing in contract law. The lawyer can review the details of the case and provide guidance on the
available legal remedies, such as filing a claim for the return of the payment made for the unwanted goods.

One such case is Baird Textile Holdings Ltd. v. Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274.
In this case, the Court of Appeal in England dealt with a situation where a supplier had sent additional goods to the
buyer, which were not originally ordered. The buyer argued that the additional goods constituted a breach of
contract and sought damages.

The court held that the supplier's delivery of goods that were not ordered constituted a breach of contract. The
court emphasized that the fundamental principle of a contract is that the parties are bound only by their offer and
acceptance. Any additional goods sent without an explicit agreement or acceptance by the buyer would not be
enforceable.

13.Xa active partner of a firm with Y and Z. X retires without giving a public notice. Whether X IS liable to the
creditors to a loan sanctioned after his retirement Decide.

In the given scenario, where X was an active partner of a firm with Y and Z but retired without giving a public notice,
the determination of X's liability to the creditors for a loan sanctioned after his retirement would depend on the
terms of the partnership agreement and the relevant laws governing partnerships.

In general, under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a partner will be liable for the acts of the firm done before their
retirement. However, the liability of a retiring partner for acts or obligations of the firm after their retirement may
vary based on the circumstances and the agreements made between the partners.

If the partnership agreement specifies that a public notice must be given to inform creditors about a partner's
retirement, and X did not comply with this requirement, it could potentially impact X's liability towards creditors for
debts incurred after retirement. The failure to give public notice may cause X to continue to be held liable as a
partner, even for loans sanctioned after retirement.

One such case is the case of P.N. Shivaram v. V. Narasimha Shenoy and Others (1983).

In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with a situation where a partner had retired from a partnership firm
without giving public notice, and the issue of his liability towards the creditors of the firm arose. The court held that
the retiring partner who failed to give public notice continues to be liable to the creditors of the firm for debts
incurred after retirement.

The court emphasized that the requirement of giving public notice is crucial to protect the interests of the creditors
of the partnership firm. The failure to give public notice not only affects the rights of the remaining partners but also
impacts the rights of the creditors who may continue to deal with the firm under the assumption that the retiring
partner is still a part of it.

14.an unregistered partnership firm borrows Rs. 1,00,000/- from X the firm failed to repay it within time. Now that
can Mr. Y do to recover the amount? Advise.

In the given scenario, where an unregistered partnership firm borrows Rs. 1,00,000/- from X and fails to repay the
amount within the agreed time, Mr. Y has a few options to recover the amount:

1. Send a legal notice: Mr. Y can initiate the recovery process by sending a legal notice to the partnership firm
demanding the repayment of the borrowed amount. The notice should clearly state the outstanding amount, the
due date, and the consequences of non-payment.

2. Mediation or negotiation: If the partnership firm is willing to negotiate, Mr. Y may consider engaging in mediation
or negotiation to reach a settlement. This could involve discussing a revised repayment schedule or exploring other
alternatives that are agreeable to both parties.
3. File a civil suit: If the partnership firm refuses to pay or fails to respond to the legal notice, Mr. Y may consider
filing a civil suit in the appropriate court. This would involve initiating legal proceedings to recover the outstanding
amount through a legal judgment. The specific court where the suit should be filed will depend on the jurisdiction
and the value of the claim.

4. Seek legal advice: It is advisable for Mr. Y to consult with a lawyer who specializes in contract and commercial law.
The lawyer can review the specifics of the case, assess the available legal options, and provide guidance on the best
course of action based on the applicable laws and potential remedies.