SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Sales of Goods Act

BRITISH PAINTS (INDIA) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1971 CAL. 393

 BRITISH PAINTS (INDIA) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1971 CAL. 393

FACTS

  • The Union of India invited tenders for the supply of paints for faded tents to a specific specification.
  • The plaintiff submitted a tender which was eventually accepted by the higher authorities of the Defence Department.
  • The contract stipulated that goods would be inspected by an Inspector in Calcutta, and if found satisfactory, dispatched by the plaintiff.
  • Delivery deadlines were extended multiple times, with the final deadline set for April 30, 1953.
  • Various batches of the supplied paints were inspected, some were accepted, and others were rejected for not meeting the required specifications.
  • The defendant terminated the contract on May 1, 1953, citing failure to deliver by the deadline and the paints not meeting quality standards.

ISSUE

  • The main issue revolves around whether the termination of the contract by the defendant was justified due to the alleged failure to deliver by the deadline and the paints not meeting quality standards.

JUDGMENT

  • The Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, affirming the termination of the contract by the defendant.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

  • The Court found that time was indeed of the essence of the contract, as explicitly stipulated, and extensions were granted only up to April 30, 1953.
  • The goods were not delivered in time, and those supplied did not meet the required quality standards as per the Inspector's reports.
  • The Inspector's reports were considered final and binding on the parties, and the plaintiff's claims of the reports being arbitrary were dismissed.
  • The tests conducted at Kanpur were found to be in accordance with the contract terms, and the rejection of the supplies based on those tests was deemed valid.
  • The plaintiff's arguments regarding the conduct of tests and quality assessments were rebutted, and the Court concluded that the defendant was within its rights to terminate the contract due to the failure to meet contractual obligations.
  • The Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the plaintiff but ultimately found no deliberate negligence on their part.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.