CPC Case Brief – Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas (Contract Jurisdiction)

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts:-

Plaintiff offered to get certain goods supplied at Ahmedabad to defendants who accepted the offer at Khamgaon. On defendants’ failure to supply requisite goods, the plaintiff sued them at Ahmedabad. A dispute arose as to where was contract formed at Khamgaon where acceptance was given by defendants or at Ahmedabad where acceptance was received by plaintiffs.

Issue:-

Whether the contract was formed at the place of acceptance or at the place where acceptance was received?

Holding:-

The court held that the contract act does not expressly deal with the place where a contract is made. The conversation over the telephone is analogous to the conversation when the parties are in presence of each other, where the negotiations are concluded by instantaneous speech. In case of correspondence by post or telegram, a third agency intervenes which is responsible for effective transmission of letters at every instance, however, in case of telephonic conversation, once the connection has been established, there is no need of any third agency to transmit the correspondence between the parties. Hence, as against cases of correspondence by post or telegram, in the present case where there was correspondence by telephone, a contract was formed when acceptance was duly communicated to the offeror and hence, at Ahmedabad.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *