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.

2. Narayan Singh v Chattarsingh- This case law deals with the surety’s
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.

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 plaintiff’s 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.

9. 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.

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

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. 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.
2. 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 A’s acceptance. It was
held that T is bound by ratification because ratification related back to the
time of A’s acceptance.
3. 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. 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 doesn’t prohibit as such.
2. 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.
3. 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 didn’t inform the buyer about this defect. The seller was
not liable for damages because there was no implied warranty.
4. 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.
5. 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 can’t 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 Let’s 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 seller’s 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 doesn’t 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 can’t be a
partnership consisting of all the minors or of one major and all other
minors.

3.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.
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!