preview

The Pros And Cons Of Contract Between Kishan And Balli

Good Essays
Open Document

Introduction Kishan, a farmer, offered to sell the good quality barley to Balli, a horse trainer, who accepted the said offer. But at the time of the delivery, Balli on getting intimated that the barley is new, refused to accept the barley and told Kishan to take it back, stating that he thought that the barley was old and since it is new, he will not take it. Kishan decided to sue Balli. We will see if Balli can revoke the contract on the basis of mistake of fact and also, is the fact fundamentally different so as to affect the contract. We will use the objective and subjective intention test for the parties. Issues 1) Is there a valid contract between Kishan and Balli? 2) Can one revoke a contract at the time of the …show more content…

They negotiate the price and both the plaintiff and defendant agree with the cost of the barley to be Rs.125 per kilo. According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an enforceable contract is formed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant thought the barley was old when it was not. Clearly, there is a mistake as to the quality of the goods contracted for. The barley is not “essentially different” as to affect assent as seen in the case of Kennedy v. Panama Mail Co.Ltd and therefore the contract cannot be pleaded void under section 20 of the Indian Contract Act,1872. Whether the barley is new or old, it is totally irrelevant to the case. As per section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, both the parties were in consensus ad idem because the deal was only about selling and buying good quality barley and that was what the plaintiff had provided. And we will take into account the objective test of intention and not the subjective test of intention as this is done in order to avoid the “evidential difficulties associated with an inquiry into the actual state of mind of a party to the contract”. But had the barley been of anything but of good quality, then there would have been a breach of contract by the plaintiff but that was not the case. And as per the argument of the plaintiff, there was no mention of old or new, before the forming of the contract by either of the parties concerned. Thus, mistake as to the quality of the barley in terms of being new or old will not affect the contract as seen in Smith v. Hughes. As contrary to what the defendant had said, the principle of uberrimae fidei cannot be applied here as this is a contract for the “sale of goods”. The plaintiff was under no duty to have told the defendant

Get Access
Related
Get Access