DECRYPTING REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930
Author: Shelal Lodhi Rajput
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Co-Author: Prabhav Sharma
The law on the sale of goods in India was regulated by Chapter VII of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (sections 76 to 123) until July 1930. Finally, it was found that the law contained in the Indian Contract Act was not adequate to fulfill the community’s needs, and that improvements were needed in some of the provisions of this branch of law in light of the new developments in commercial laws. Section 65 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, repealed the above mentioned sections 76 to 123 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, based on the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893, the Sale of Goods Act was passed in 1930.
The whole aim of the sale of goods is to transfer property from one person to another. A contract for the sale of goods is, under section 4(1) of the Selling of Goods Act 1930, a contract under which the seller sells or agrees to transfer the goods to the buyer for a price. The law on the sale of goods attempts to balance the rights, obligations, claims and expectations of the goods’ sellers and buyers.
An emphasis was drawn here on the remedies available to each party for infringement of the contract of sale of the other party. Chapter VI of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, deals with contract infringement and sets out the rights and obligations of the seller to the buyer, and vice versa. This is dealt with in sections 55 to 61.
Sections 55 and 56 concentrate on the seller’s rights against the buyer and enable the seller either to sue for the price of the goods or to demand damages for failure to fulfill the contract.
Sections 57, 58 and 59 lay down the recourse applicable to the buyer against the seller in the event of the latter violating the contract. The buyer may claim damages for failure to deliver goods, damages for breach of warranty or specific performance of the contract.
Sections 60 and 61 give rise to all special circumstances where there is a redress for the violation by both the buyer and the seller.
Under The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, there are various kinds of duties of both the buyer and the seller and upon the violation of any such duty or the right available to any person, that person is entitled to get compensation. Therefore, remedies are also available in the Act itself but there has been development in this area by various case laws that needs to be analyzed.
- To have a basic understanding of the remedies available to the buyer and the seller under The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
- To analyze the remedies available under different conditions and circumstances.
- To point out the different sets of rights and duties of the seller and the buyer, the violation of which can led to different sort of remedies.
- To clarify with examples, illustrations, and case laws that led to the development of the remedies available under The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
- To provide some suggestions and draw conclusions which can help us understand the concept more clearly.
There have been many developments since the enactment of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, through case laws and some amendments as well. Chapter VI of the said Act deals with the breach of contract of sale and it has also undergone changes during all these years because of certain technological and economic advancements in this field. These changes have been very essential to the proper implementation of the law in modern scenario.
For covering all the sources of the topic, Doctrinal research is used. Doctrinal research also referred to as library-based research, focuses on primary and secondary data reading and research. The bulk of their content is concerned with defining and evaluating the sources that help to make this assignment while reviewing a variety of text books on the importance of the topic. In relation to this project work, it is concerned with the concept and synthesis of analysis of whole documents.
SELLER’S REMEDIES AGAINST THE BUYER
The suits which the seller can initiate against the buyer under the Act can be divided into two categories:
- Suit for price
- Damages for non-acceptance
Suit for price
If the property in the goods has been transferred to the buyer under a sales contract and the buyer erroneously neglects or refuses to pay for the goods under the terms of the contract, the seller may sue the buyer for the price of the goods.
Under Section 55 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this provision is given. It specifies that:
“(1) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods has passed to the buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract, the seller may sue him for the price of the goods.
(2) Where under a contract of sale the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay such price, the seller may sue him for the price although the property in the goods has not passed and the goods have not been appropriated to the contract.”
From the section above, it can be seen that the seller can only sue for payment after the property has been transferred to the buyer, except as stated in sub-section (2). The transfer of the property depends on certain conditions and, if those conditions are not fulfilled, he cannot sue for payment under this clause.
If the goods are sold for a certain amount and the offer is to be made partly in cash and partly in kind, the default entitles the seller to sue for the remainder of the price if made in kind.
In the case of Colley V. Overseas Exporters, there was an arrangement to sell some undisclosed leather products to the purchaser. In this situation, while the seller sent the goods, they could not be placed on board since no definite ship had been identified by the buyer. When action was taken by the buyer against the seller, it was held that the seller was not entitled to pay the price because the goods had not yet come into the hands of the buyer. The seller is not entitled to sue the buyer for payment in the absence of a price payment arrangement on a given day, irrespective of delivery, but may bring an action for damages.
If a sales contract exists in which the price is due on a certain date, irrespective of the delivery date, and the buyer erroneously neglects or fails to pay the price, the seller may sue for the price, even if the property has not been transferred and the goods have not been allocated.
This can be seen in Dunlop v Grote, there was a contract for the supply of Iron between 3rd March and 30th April as per the buyer’s requirements according to the facts of the case. The price was due on the 30th of April. On April 30th, however, only part of the consignment was received by the buyer, as he no longer wanted it. The seller was held capable of recovering the entire price in the suit brought by the seller and was not required to show that the goods were sufficient for the deal.
If the buyer wrongly neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, the seller will sue him for damages for non-acceptance.
Under Section 56 of the Selling of Goods Act, 1930, this condition is given. It declares that:
“Where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, the seller may sue him for damages for non-acceptance.”
The compensation shall be calculated on the basis of the principles set out in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sections 73 and 74. Pursuant to section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, if a contract has been infringed, the party suffering an infringement is entitled to claim compensation from the party infringing the contract for any damage arising from the infringement which, in the ordinary course of events, naturally occurred as a result of the infringement, or which the parties recognized when the contract was entered into.
Furthermore, when calculating the loss or damage caused by the breach of the contract, the means of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.
The day on which the market price is to be determined shall be the day on which delivery and acceptance of the contract should have been performed as stated in the contract or at the time of refusal to execute the contract if no deadline has been set.
For example, X and Y have concluded a wheat sale contract. On the 15th of the month, X had to deliver 100 sacks of wheat to Y. Y declined to take delivery on 15th and the price of one bag on that day was Rs 5, 000. X filed a suit on the 20th of the month for non-acceptance and the market price for a bag of wheat on that day was Rs 4,500. The market price will be considered as 5,000 Rs for the purpose of the suit.
In accordance with the provisions of Articles 55 and 63 of the Indian Contract Act, where the duration of performance is set by the contract but is extended and another date is substituted by an arrangement between the parties, the date of replacement must be treated as the date on which the damage measure is calculated.
The plaintiff sold the products through the commission agents in the case of Suresh Kumar Rajendra Kumar v K Assan Koya & sons and demanded compensation from the buyer who had refused them. In doing so, in the usual course of business, the plaintiff took all the requisite steps to sell the goods urgently. The court held that the claimant was entitled to assert the difference between the price at which the rice was to be sold to the defendants and the price at which it was eventually sold, in the absence of any documents indicating that the sale was being carried out in an improper manner.
If the items are deliverable in installments and one or more of the installments have to be approved by the consumer, the disparity in prices must be calculated on the day on which a particular installment was to be delivered. If, in contravention of its contract, the military authorities declined to consider additional supplies of cots, the J&K High Court allowed Rs. 4 per cot as the damage to the supplies as the benefit that the supplier would have received under its supply contract.
The seller has been shown to have numerous remedies against both the goods and the buyer personally, and he still has the option of using the remedy listed in this section in certain instances where those remedies remain. However, where the property has not been transferred and there is nothing in the contract which enables the buyer to resell the goods and to charge the difference between the price of the contract and the price of the resale or to sue for a price irrespective of the delivery or transfer of the property, the only remedy by which the buyer may recover the purchase price is the remedy provided for in this section.
BUYER’S REMEDIES AGAINST THE SELLER
The suits which the buyer may institute against the seller can be divided into three types:
- Damages for non-delivery
- Remedy for breach of warranty
- Specific performance
The buyer will sue the seller for non-delivery damages if the seller wrongly neglects or fails to deliver the product to the buyer.
Under Section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this requirement is given. It declares that:
“Where the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may sue the seller for damages for non-delivery.”
The buyer has all the recourse of an owner against those who deal with the goods in a manner inconsistent with his rights when the properties in the goods have passed, given that he is entitled to immediate possession. Therefore, if the seller falsely re-sells them, he may sue the seller in trover and even the second purchaser, although the provisions of sections 30 and 54 may reduce his rights.
In the case of non-delivery, the disparity between the contract price and the market price will be the true measure of the damages at the time of the infringement. The market value of the products means “the value on the market, irrespective of the circumstances unique to the claimant (the purchaser).”
Where he, the seller, is guilty of violation of a purchase agreement, the following remedy may be given to the buyer:
- Under section 57 of the Selling of Goods Act, the buyer may sue for damages for non-delivery.
- In the event that the buyer pays the sum, he will recover it in a money suit and collect it for a consideration that has absolutely collapsed.
However, if the buyer has not shown the alleged harm caused by the shortage of goods by the seller and has also refused to include a notice under Section 55 of the Indian Contracts Act, the buyer might not be entitled to seek damages.
In the case of pre-payment, the date on which the calculation for damages was decided must be the date of the violation, but in such a case it could be claimed that the purchaser did not have the money in his possession and was thus unable to go to the market and buy it, and that the date of the litigation could have been decided by nisi prius in accordance with this concept. However, a more realistic view is that, even in this situation, in order to measure the difference between the contract price and the sale price, the date of the violation should be taken and the buyer will recover the amount with interest.
In a case where the seller failed to supply Finnish timber and English timber requiring more expense, cutting and therefore more waste was the closest alternative the buyer could obtain, it was held that the buyer was entitled to claim the additional cost because the buyer had behaved fairly in minimizing his claim.
Where the seller did not produce the timber, the market price of the timber was used as the basis for the calculation of the harm at the due date of delivery. The Privy Council observed that “if the seller had supplied the timber, the buyers would have made their profits and then had to sell the other timber on which they were entitled to make as much profit as they could.” In order for the buyer to recover an amount exceeding that which represents the difference between the market price and the contract price as loss, it is important to show that the difference between the market price and the contract price is greater than that.
If there is a breach of warranty by the seller, the buyer is therefore entitled to sue the seller. Under Section 59 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this requirement is given. It declares that:
“(1) Where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects or is compelled to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods; but he may—
(a) Set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price; or
(b) Sue the seller for damages for breach of warranty.
(2) The fact that a buyer has set up a breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price does not prevent him from suing for the same breach of warranty if he has suffered further damage.”
A breach of warranty would not authorize the purchaser to refuse the product and its sole remedy will be that provided for in Section 59, namely to bring a breach of warranty against the seller in the case of a price decline or extinction or to sue the seller for damages for a breach of warranty. It is evident from the description of the warranty provided in Section 12(3) that a breach of the warranty only gives raises to a claim for damages on the part of the purchaser. Section 13 also states that, even if the customer has agreed, on a voluntary basis or by behaving in such a way as to preclude him from exercising his right to refuse the products or, in the case of entire contracts, part of them, he must return to his claim for damages as if the violation of the condition represented an infringement of the warranty.
This section describes the means by which a customer who has a claim for damages may take advantage of it in any case. It does not deal with cases of fraudulent misrepresentation that may cause the purchaser to set aside the contract or with cases where the purchaser may return the products under the express terms of the contract in the event of a violation of the warranty. Furthermore, in cases where the seller has actually rejected the goods, the purchase price and interest will continue to be recovered not pursuant to that provision, but pursuant to Section 57 and, where appropriate, pursuant to Section 61.
It should be noted here that, in such cases, damages are determined in compliance with Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This was also found by the Bombay High Court’s division bench in Maharashtra ltd. City And Industrial Development Company, Bombay v Nagpur steel and alloys, Nagpur:
“Remedies under Section 59 are not absolute and cannot be resorted to at any point or strategical point suitable to the buyer. He is duty-bound to give notice of his intention. Its proper time, form and manner will, of course, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To hold otherwise, would amount to placing the seller in an awkward and indefinite position — not warranted either by law or by equity.”
In the case of quality assurance, the presumption is that the harm calculation is the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery and the value of the goods according to the contract, which must be measured on the basis of the market price at that time.
In most cases, it is found that the warranty in question is not a guarantee as specified in Section 12(2), but is treated as a guarantee pursuant to Section 13(2). Quite often, it is a requirement that the products conform to, or fit for a particular purpose, the description by which they were sold.
The buyer must depend on the guarantee and act reasonably, i.e., to mitigate the harm, he should take rational measures. Where there is an infringement of the promise that the products should suit for a particular reason, the rule again is that the damages should be the product of the infringement as they which naturally flow. In the event that the wife of the plaintiff died as a result of the effects of the consumption of tinned salmon purchased from the defendant by the plaintiff, it was formed that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the violation of the promise that the salmon would be fit for human consumption. For medical expenses, funeral costs and her loss of life, compensation has been granted.
Any conditions that may be classified as violations of warranty, such as warranty of title, can also be breached. In such a case, the buyer may also be involved in difficulties with sub-buyers, for instance, he may buy a motor car from someone who has no right to sell it and resell it to a third party from which it or its value will be recovered by the true owner.
In any action brought by the purchaser for violation of a contract for the supply of particular or existing products, the Court may, if it finds it necessary, order, at the request of the purchaser, by its decision, that the contract be executed directly, without granting the seller the chance of retaining the products for payment of damages. The decision may be absolute, or under terms and conditions such as damages, payment of the price or otherwise, as the court may deem necessary.
Under Section 58 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this requirement is given. It declares that:
“Subject to the provisions of Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), in any suit for breach of contract to deliver specific or ascertained goods, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the plaintiff, by its decree direct that the contract shall be performed specifically, without giving the defendant the option of retaining the goods on payment of damages. The decree may be unconditional, or upon such terms and conditions as to damages, payment of the price, or otherwise, as the Court may deem just, and the application of the plaintiff may be made at any time before the decree.”
This section can be explained better by one example; there was a deal to sell a ship to a German ship owner. The ship was an old ship, but its engines and boilers were new to comply with German laws, and the buyer was immediately able to get it registered in Germany. In view of these facts and the price, the ship was of specific interest to the purchaser and there was only one other ship on the market which would meet his requirements. Relevant contract performance was authorized by the tribunal.
Originally, the laws concerning the selling of goods were part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which, as such, did not allow for an equal remedy for particular results. Subsequently, a separate Statute, namely the Special Relief Act, 1877, was passed to provide for equal remedies, including a remedy for particular results.
The section provides a remedy for the buyer, and does not grant the seller a correlative right. Therefore, when suing as a complainant, it is only on the request of the customer that the sales contract can be explicitly implemented and the section applies only when the contract is for the supply of particular or decided products. A seller was found not to be entitled to enforce a particular performance of the contract pursuant to Section 58 on the ground that it deals with the case of the purchaser of specific goods in the sense of a contract for the supply of like or similar goods. ‘Specific’ here has the meaning provided in Section 2(14), whereas ‘ascertained’ means ‘defined after a sales contract is made’ in accordance with the agreement.
There was the Special Relief Act 1877, Chapter II of which dealt with the precise performance of an existing contract, before the Sale of Goods Act 1930 was passed. This is also why the terms ‘under Chapter II of the Special Relief Act, 1877’ end with Section 58 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
In imposing conditions, the court has wide discretion. In one case, under a lien to protect the transferor from the non-payment of the share price, a particular performance of the convey of shares agreement was given. In another case , the House of Lords set a condition that the buyer pay interest on the purchase price, which he was entitled to hold pending the warrant, while ordering the precise execution of a contract to sell shares.
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO BOTH BUYER AND SELLER
The suits which the buyer or the seller may institute are of two types:
- Suit for repudiation of contract before date or anticipatory breach
- Interest by way of damages and special damages
Suit for repudiation of contract before date or anticipatory breach
Where a party withdraws from the contract before the goods are delivered, the other party may wait until the date on which the goods are delivered or may consider the contract to be terminated and demand damages.
Under Section 60 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this requirement is given. It declares that:
“Where either party to a contract of sale repudiates the contract before the date of delivery, the other may either treat the contract as subsisting and wait till the date of delivery, or he may treat the contract as rescinded and sue for damages for the breach.”
This section does not appear in the English Act and deals with an anticipatory violation of a contract, i.e. a manifest intention on the part of any party not to be bound by the duty to fulfill the part of the contract at the time of execution. In any particular situation, whether repudiation has actually occurred or not, depends on the particulars.
The calculation of damages shall not be fixed by the date of dismissal of the defaulting party. In the case of products for which a demand exists, the difference between the contract price of the commodity and the retail price is calculated in conjunction with that date. This is done in order to get the claimant as close as he would have been to the spot if the contract had not been refused. The fair time principle is applicable in the case of contracts where no time limit is set and a party fails to execute the contract. In this case, the date of dismissal shall be treated as the date on which the contract is terminated and the damages shall be determined on the basis of that date.
If the non-default party refuses to recognize the repudiation of the other party, as can be seen from Frost v Knight, it must hold the contract alive for all purposes. Consequently, if he himself is unable to fulfill or fails to fulfill his contract when the time for success arrives, the situation would be the same as it would have been if the other party had not been repudiated in advance and the latter could be discharged, and can even sue for damages.
In the case of Frost v. Knight, when K’s father died, K had agreed to marry F. When K’s father was still alive, K told F that he wouldn’t marry her after his father’s death. F brought an appeal for breach of contract. It was held that F was entitled to recognize the repudiation of the contract by K to marry her and to sue K. It has been concluded that one contracting party can in fact refuse to continue to perform its contractual duties. In such a case, the other party to the contract can bring an action before the court for violation of the contract if it can demonstrate that it has always been able to satisfy its obligations under the same agreement.
If, however, after refusing to acknowledge the buyer’s anticipatory repudiation, the seller, when the time for success comes, offers goods which are not included in the definition of the contract or offers documents which the buyer is not obliged to accept under the CIF contract, the buyer may legally refuse the goods or the documents and the seller shall have no remedy; or the buyer may accept the goods.
In Hochster v De la Tour, it was held that if one of the parties repudiates the contract before the time of performance of the contract, the other party has the right to sue for damages for the breach before the date of performance of the contract has been reached. The defendant had engaged the company of the plaintiff in this case to go on tour with him. The service of the plaintiff was to commence on 1 June, but on 11 May the defendant informed him that his services were no longer required. Before the contract execution date came, the plaintiff filed the case to claim damages for breach of contract.
Interest by way of damages and special damages
Where special damages or interest may be recoverable by statute, special damages may be sought by the buyer or seller.
Under Section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, this condition is given. It declares that:
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the seller or the buyer to recover interest or special damages in any case where by law interest or special damages may be recoverable, or to recover the money paid where the consideration for the payment of it has failed.
(2) In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price—
(a) to the seller in a suit by him for the amount of the price—from the date of the tender of the goods or from the date on which the price was payable;
(b) to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of a breach of the contract on the part of the seller—from the date on which the payment was made.”
This section reserves the right of a party to a sales contract to recover special damages, i.e. compensation for any loss or harm caused to it by the violation of either party that was likely to result from the breach of the contract when the parties agreed upon it.
In comparison to those arising from the violation, such damages ‘occurred naturally in the ordinary course of things.’ Generally speaking, the claimant would recover the latter alone. However, the rule is subject to restrictions in so far as the violation caused a particular loss, which was in fact regarded by the parties at the time the contract was concluded, that the special loss after the violation must be taken into account.
In one instance, the defendant decided, on 14 August, to sell and give a threshing machine to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a farmer and the threshing machine was needed on 14 August, a fact the defendant knew well. The defendant failed, however, to deliver it, while assuring the complainant that he would deliver it shortly. Based on these promises, the plaintiff did not employ another thresher. The complainant was then obliged to stack the wheat, and when it was packed, it was destroyed by the rain and had to be dried in a kiln. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, such as the cost of stacking the wheat, the loss due to the failure to stack the wheat, the harm caused by the rain and the cost of drying, but was unable to recover because the market price was dropping.
Act 32 of 1839 allowed, in some circumstances, for interest to be charged by way of damages. According to the Act, the court was entitled to enable interest on debts or such sums payable by the instrument in writing, from the time the sum was payable when the payment duration was fixed or no time was set, from the date on which the payment request was made in writing, to inform the debtor that interest will be claimed.
The House of Lords upheld the rule in the case of the President of India v La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA that common law does not require interest to be given by way of general damages for failure to pay a debt past the date on which it was contractually due. However, if the rule of remoteness is satisfied, real damages can be awarded as owed to the defendant in respect of the interest paid by the plaintiff.
It can be remembered that only when he is in a position to recover the price will the seller recover interest. Under the terms of this sub-section, if he can only sue for damages for breach of contract, he is not entitled to benefit.
In M / s. J. The contract for the supply of tea with a given specification was Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Co-operatives Ltd. The goods supplied were not of an accepted quality or specification. The goods were rejected by the final purchaser, who terminated the deal with the buyer. Since the final receiver had terminated the deal, the buyer incurred losses. There has been a delay in paying the amount. For damages, the seller sued the buyer and also pleaded penal interest. It was held that the plaintiff (seller) should not charge interest on the deferred payment. If payment is postponed for no fault of the defendant, it is difficult to raise the issue of the defendant’s paying penal interest.
Similarly, the buyer will only recover interest if he is entitled to recover the purchase price, that is to say, if he is entitled to sue for the price prepaid as money and obtained for consideration on account of a complete loss. If his only remedy is to sue for damages, for instance for a violation of guarantee, he may not recover interest, even though such damages might be sufficient to extinguish the price. Moreover, in the event of a breach of contract, he is only entitled to interest, probably on the part of the seller. Accordingly, the restriction precludes cases arising under sections 7 and 8 and, possibly, other cases where the contract is based on a provision added for the benefit of the seller and is not satisfied as a result of the non-fulfillment of that provision, or where the contract is frustrated by circumstances over which the seller has no power, so that he is not liable for an action by statute.
A contract for the sale of movable property shall be a contract establishing that the ‘sale’ of such property shall take place on the terms and conditions settled between the parties to that contract. Such sale contract does not give rise to any interest or charge on such movable property. The selling contract leads to no transfer of ownership. However, in respect of the property’s ownership a kind of duty is established.
This duty is applicable on both the buyer and seller under The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and is a very essential part for the proper execution of the contract. Thus for the violation of any of such duties will amount to breach of the contract and will led to the loss of one of the parties to the contract. There are liquidated and unliquidated damages available to the contracting parties in the case of the breach of said contracts. Under the law, this type of breach should be provided for some sort of remedies. Therefore The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 incorporates the remedies available to both buyer and seller and also the common remedies that both can enforce upon the breach of contract.
Most of the remedies available under the Act are sufficient to remedy the buyer and the seller for their respective losses. The law also incorporates some general principles of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 that are essential to deal with the breach of contract.
Since the enactment of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, there have been many developments through case laws and also some amendments. Chapter VI of the aforementioned Act deals with the breach of the sales contract and has also undergone changes over the years due to certain technological and economic advances in this area. Such reforms were very important for the proper application of the law in a modern scenario.
Mulla The Indian Contract Act by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla
This book is a comprehensive text on the contract law and provides in-depth analysis of the wide range of topics under contracts. The book covers the basic concepts of contracts under English law but also specifically relates to the development of contract law in the Indian context and lays down the basic principles under The Indian Contract Act, 1872. The law relating to contracts is basically statute based but is also developed with the help of many English as well as Indian cases. So the book mentions all the relevant English as well as Indian cases in a different contexts to elaborate the concepts more clearly. The book also depicts the historical development in the contract law in England as well as in India which helps to understand and comprehend the concepts more clearly. The main focus of the book is to highlight the basic principles under Indian Contract Act by taking the help of relevant English provisions and also case laws.
- The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
- Mulla The Indian Contract Act by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla.
- Nidhi Singh, Remedies for Breach under Sale of Goods Act, Lawctopus (June 20, 2020, 5:15 PM), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/remedies-breach-under-sale-of-goods-act/#:~:text=Sections%2055%20and%2056%20focus,the%20latter%20breaches%20the%20contract.
- Shrankhala Panwar, Breach of Contract in Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Indianlegalsolution (June 30, 2020, 9:15 PM), https://indianlegalsolution.com/breach-of-contract-in-sales-of-goods-act1930.
- Rebecca Furtado, Remedies for Breach under Sale of Goods Act, IPleaders (June 22, 2020, 4:20 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/remedies-breach-sale-goods-act/.
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 55 (1930).
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 56 (1930).
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 57 (1930).
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 59 (1930).
 City And Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra ltd., Bombay v Nagpur steel and alloys, Nagpur, AIR 1992 Bombay 55.
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 58 (1930).
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 60 (1930).
 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No.3 § 61 (1930).