MOURAD ISRAIL EL AINI, Appellant-Dejendant v. BROOKE, BOND & CO., LTD., Respondents-Plaintiffs

Domages=-Saie of goods-Mitigation-Duty of local agent to sell goods repu-
diated by buyer-Reasonable conduct 0/ agent

A local agent who holds goods which have been refused by the pur-
chaser in breach of contract may reasonably ask for instructions by air mail
from his principal in Batavia rather than immediately offer the goods for
sale in the market in mitigation of the damages caused by the purchaser.

Appeal

January 6, 1941. Flaxman J.: This is an appeal from a decision
in the High Court, Khartoum, awarding the plaintiffs £ E.191.292
m/ms and costs as damages arising from defendant's repudiation of
a contract to purchase 1000 chests of tea, which were shipped by the
plaintiffs to Port Sudan on his instructions, acceptance on arrival
being refused. It was held in the court below that the plaintiffs had
fulfilled their part of the contract, and that the defendant had no
good cause to refuse to accept and pay for the goods, and that he is
liable in damages for his refusal. There is no appeal on the issue
of the wrongful repudiation of the contract, and this- court is only
concerned with the measure of damages, which it is claimed is exces-
sive. The defendant submits that had the tea been sold without undue
delay after notice of his repudiation was given, a better price would
have been obtained and the damages mitigated.

The definite intimation by the defendant that he refused to take
delivery of the consignment was given by letter addressed to the
plaintiffs' Khartoum agents on Feburary 19, 1940. The defendant
claims that the tea should have then been offered for sale, or at
least as soon as cable instructions had been asked for and obtained
by the agents. The market slumped in March, and the price obtained
at the sale early in April was admittedly lower than it would have
been had the consignment been disposed of earlier.

It was for the court to decide if the plaintiffs' agents acted in
the circumstances in a manner reasonable and proper for a business
firm to act. This is a question of fact, and this court can see no

•. Court: Creed C.1., Flaxman I. and A. J. Claxton Esq.

good reason to find that they acted otherwise. They could not be
expected to forecast how the fluctuating prices of this commodity
would run, and it was a prudent and proper step on the part of the
agents to ask for instructions by air mail from the principals in Batavia
before oflcring the tea for sale.

Creed c.J.: I concur.

A. J. Claxton Esq.: I concur.

Appeal dismissed

Domages=-Saie of goods-Mitigation-Duty of local agent to sell goods repu-
diated by buyer-Reasonable conduct 0/ agent

A local agent who holds goods which have been refused by the pur-
chaser in breach of contract may reasonably ask for instructions by air mail
from his principal in Batavia rather than immediately offer the goods for
sale in the market in mitigation of the damages caused by the purchaser.

Appeal

January 6, 1941. Flaxman J.: This is an appeal from a decision
in the High Court, Khartoum, awarding the plaintiffs £ E.191.292
m/ms and costs as damages arising from defendant's repudiation of
a contract to purchase 1000 chests of tea, which were shipped by the
plaintiffs to Port Sudan on his instructions, acceptance on arrival
being refused. It was held in the court below that the plaintiffs had
fulfilled their part of the contract, and that the defendant had no
good cause to refuse to accept and pay for the goods, and that he is
liable in damages for his refusal. There is no appeal on the issue
of the wrongful repudiation of the contract, and this- court is only
concerned with the measure of damages, which it is claimed is exces-
sive. The defendant submits that had the tea been sold without undue
delay after notice of his repudiation was given, a better price would
have been obtained and the damages mitigated.

The definite intimation by the defendant that he refused to take
delivery of the consignment was given by letter addressed to the
plaintiffs' Khartoum agents on Feburary 19, 1940. The defendant
claims that the tea should have then been offered for sale, or at
least as soon as cable instructions had been asked for and obtained
by the agents. The market slumped in March, and the price obtained
at the sale early in April was admittedly lower than it would have
been had the consignment been disposed of earlier.

It was for the court to decide if the plaintiffs' agents acted in
the circumstances in a manner reasonable and proper for a business
firm to act. This is a question of fact, and this court can see no

•. Court: Creed C.1., Flaxman I. and A. J. Claxton Esq.

good reason to find that they acted otherwise. They could not be
expected to forecast how the fluctuating prices of this commodity
would run, and it was a prudent and proper step on the part of the
agents to ask for instructions by air mail from the principals in Batavia
before oflcring the tea for sale.

Creed c.J.: I concur.

A. J. Claxton Esq.: I concur.

Appeal dismissed

Domages=-Saie of goods-Mitigation-Duty of local agent to sell goods repu-
diated by buyer-Reasonable conduct 0/ agent

A local agent who holds goods which have been refused by the pur-
chaser in breach of contract may reasonably ask for instructions by air mail
from his principal in Batavia rather than immediately offer the goods for
sale in the market in mitigation of the damages caused by the purchaser.

Appeal

January 6, 1941. Flaxman J.: This is an appeal from a decision
in the High Court, Khartoum, awarding the plaintiffs £ E.191.292
m/ms and costs as damages arising from defendant's repudiation of
a contract to purchase 1000 chests of tea, which were shipped by the
plaintiffs to Port Sudan on his instructions, acceptance on arrival
being refused. It was held in the court below that the plaintiffs had
fulfilled their part of the contract, and that the defendant had no
good cause to refuse to accept and pay for the goods, and that he is
liable in damages for his refusal. There is no appeal on the issue
of the wrongful repudiation of the contract, and this- court is only
concerned with the measure of damages, which it is claimed is exces-
sive. The defendant submits that had the tea been sold without undue
delay after notice of his repudiation was given, a better price would
have been obtained and the damages mitigated.

The definite intimation by the defendant that he refused to take
delivery of the consignment was given by letter addressed to the
plaintiffs' Khartoum agents on Feburary 19, 1940. The defendant
claims that the tea should have then been offered for sale, or at
least as soon as cable instructions had been asked for and obtained
by the agents. The market slumped in March, and the price obtained
at the sale early in April was admittedly lower than it would have
been had the consignment been disposed of earlier.

It was for the court to decide if the plaintiffs' agents acted in
the circumstances in a manner reasonable and proper for a business
firm to act. This is a question of fact, and this court can see no

•. Court: Creed C.1., Flaxman I. and A. J. Claxton Esq.

good reason to find that they acted otherwise. They could not be
expected to forecast how the fluctuating prices of this commodity
would run, and it was a prudent and proper step on the part of the
agents to ask for instructions by air mail from the principals in Batavia
before oflcring the tea for sale.

Creed c.J.: I concur.

A. J. Claxton Esq.: I concur.

Appeal dismissed

استمارة البحث

استمارة البحث

استمارة البحث

MOURAD ISRAIL EL AINI, Appellant-Dejendant v. BROOKE, BOND & CO., LTD., Respondents-Plaintiffs

MOURAD ISRAIL EL AINI, Appellant-Dejendant v. BROOKE, BOND & CO., LTD., Respondents-Plaintiffs

MOURAD ISRAIL EL AINI, Appellant-Dejendant v. BROOKE, BOND & CO., LTD., Respondents-Plaintiffs