Breach of Contract.

(Compensation)
Case Law (Judicial Precedents) Contract of sale of goods: Buyer refusing to accept delivery:
Where the buyer wrongfully neglects refuses to accept or pay for the goods the rule for computation of damages is the difference between the contract price & market price available on the date of breach of contract. (PLD 1975 Kar. 707) Loss of Profits due to breach of contract: A sum of Rs: 1, 35,823/- represented the loss which the party could have earned had the contract not been cancelled. Loss of such profit which the supplier could have reasonably earned can be treated as a fair measure of compensation for the breach. (PLD 1973 SC 311) Goods of different quality supplied then contracted for: If goods of different quality are supplied, or do not conform to the description, or any condition implied / express. The buyer has the right to refuse delivery. A defective delivery has the same effect as non-delivery. (PLJ 1974 Kar. 7 (DB) Deviation from the contracted quantity: Contract to supply 1, 00, 000 tons of rice. Only 37, 000 tons were supplied. The judicial opinion is that contracted quantity should not be too large. In cases, it is accepted that deviation should be 3% to 5%. Only 37, 000 ton were delivered which is too a deviation & hence a breach of contract. (PLD 1971 Kar. 479) Government Contracts: Contract was to supply goods of approved quality. The condition in the contract was that in the event of non-supply the officer operating the contract was to procure it from any quarter & access cost so incurred over the contract price shall be recoverable from the contractor. Upon the failure of the contractor to supply goods of the required quality the goods were purchased from the open market, without calling for tenders. The extra cost so incurred was sort to be recovered from the contractor. It was held that the Army Authorities made no in getting the supply of risk purchases at controlled rates or at rates reasonably the control rates. Without the authenticity of rate of risk purchases. The risk purchases were on fancy prices which were double the rate of control rates. Therefore, the damages were refused. ( PLD Peshawar 313)