C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons Free Essays

The Appellant humbly submits this memorandum for one appeal filed before this Honorable Court.. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based. We will write a custom essay sample on C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons or any similar topic only for you Order Now Statement of Jurisdiction of the Respondent The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the appeal filed before this Honorable Court.. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based. Statement of Facts On 6th May, 1971, C. V George and Company, a contractor in Cochin, requested a quotation for the supply of one hot mix plant from Marshall Sons, a dealer in Hot Mix plants and Mini Crushers. The requested quotation was sent by Marshall Sons on 1 lath May, 1971. After a few days, on 21st June 1971, C. V. George and Company requested for a revised quotation which was sent by Marshall Sons on 29th July, 1971. C. V George and Company finally placed the order for one hot mix plant on 31st July, 1971. In their second quotation, Marshall Sons said that they would supply the hot mix plant within 3-4 months, subject to conditions beyond its control. To this quotation, the contractor sent a letter saying that according to their previous discussions, the hot mix plant should be ready by the last week of September. No reply affirming this condition was sent by the dealer. Nearly a month after the time within which C. V. George and company wanted to have the delivery of the plant, they received a letter from Marshall Sons stating that he plant would be ready for delivery in the middle of next month or even earlier and that they had requested their associate company to expedite delivery of the machine. On 22nd November, 1971 Marshall Sons informed C. V George and Company that due to the go slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory it would be impossible for its associate company to deliver the plan by the end of November and they would try to deliver it by 10th December, 1971. There was no further correspondence between the two parties and the plant was eventually supplied by Marshall Sons on 30th January,1972. Marshall Sons (plaintiff filed a case against C. V George and Company (defendant) in the trial court due to discrepancies between them. The objective of filing the case was to claim the amount for the supply of the hot mix plant from C. V George and Company whereas C. V. George and Company made a claim for damages under four counts, namely: (1) RSI. 2,000 being the cost of 12 volt electrical starter equipment with battery complete;(2) RSI. 321. 97 being the expenditure incurred towards the cost of materials and labor charges for welding and rectification of defects before the commission of the plant: (3) RSI. 2,000 being the value of 0. 75 ton of steel and (4) RSI. 8,175 being the hire charges for hiring plant from the Cochin Corporation. The trial court held that: (1) there was no consensus among the parties regarding the mime within which the hot mix plant was to be supplied, (2) C. V. George would receive an amount of RSI. 500 for the 12 volt electrical supply starter equipment and the other three claims would be set off, (3) even if for any reason, it is held that the amounts claimed under the other three clauses, do not amount to a plea of set off or counterclaim, the evidence adduced, has not established the claim made by the defendant. A decree was given in the favor of the plaintiff for a sum of 12,096 and at an interest rate of 6% annum from 27th’ January, 1971, till the date of plaint and proportionate costs. C. V George and Company appealed against this decree and judgment of the trial court in the high court. Questions Presented by the Appellant The following questions are presented before the court in the instant matter: 1) Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract 2) Whether the contract was carried out by the respondent within a reasonable span of time 3) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages 4) Whether there was a breach of warranty Questions Presented by the Respondent Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract 2) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages 3) Whether there was a breach Summary of Pleadings of the Appellant 1 . Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract: Ordinarily, time is to be treated as an essence of commercial contracts, as stated by the Counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, when the appellant requested for the machinery to be supplied latest by the middle of September, 1971 , the subsequent replies of the respondent showed clear indication of acknowledgment of the time span, as well as the stipulated deadline. Therefore, the respondent has committed reach of condition of warranty under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, by not supplying the hot mix plant by the middle of September, 1971. . Whether the contract was carried out by the respondent within a reasonable span of time: The appellant’s case states that the hot mix plant should have been supplied by the middle of September, 1971 and the respondent failed to fulfill his part of the contract as the plant was supplied on 30th January, 1972. The appellant further states that this delay was without any rea sonable or probable cause and hence the contract wasn’t fulfilled within reasonable time. 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages: The appellant’s case is that as the hot mix plant was not delivered within the time stipulated, it is entitled to claim damages amounting to 12,496. Due to the delay in the supply of the plant, the appellant had to incur losses. 4. Whether there was a breach of warranty: The appellant claims that there was a breach of warranty and tries to recover the amount he can. He is of the view that part (3) in section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act entitles him to raise a claim. Part (3) in section 12: ‘A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach f which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. ‘ Summary of Pleadings of the Respondent 1 . Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract: The respondent had stated that the hot mix plant would be supplied within 3-4 months, subject to conditions beyond its control. Though the appellant wanted delivery of the hot mix plant in the middle of September, 1971, the respondent did not send any reply agreeing to the appellant’s stipulation. Marshall Sons sent out another correspondence on 22nd November, stating that in view of the go slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory for the past one month, it would not be possible for its associate company to deliver the plant by the end of November. No objection or protest was raised by the appellant in response to this. There was no consensus regarding the period within which the plant had to be supplied and thus, time was not to be considered as essence. 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages: The appellant aimed to collect its desired sum as compensation, of RSI. 12,496, by using Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act. An important portion of this act states that if the appellant ants to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the contract within the stipulated time and if the appellant accepts performance of the contract, he must issue notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages. In this situation, the appellant issued the notice to the respondent on 8th December, 1971, which was long prior to the date when the goods were supplied to it and the performance of the contract was accepted by the appellant. Therefore, since the claim was not issued at the time when the appellant accepted the performance of he contract, the appellant is unable to resort to Section 55 of the Contract Act to sustain a claim for damages against the respondent. 3. Whether there was a breach of warranty: Granting for argument sake that time was essence of the contract and there was breach of contract by the respondent, even then Section 59 of the Sales of Goods Act cannot be attracted as the definition of â€Å"Condition and Warranty’ in Section 12 of the Sales of Goods Act is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters is outside the definition f Section 12 of Sales of Goods Act. Pleadings and Authorities 1 . Time is to be considered an essence of the contract: The Counsel for the appellant made its case by stating that time was of essence to this particular situation, and is treated as such for commercial contracts, in reference to two such decisions of the Supreme Court in Inhabit Parkas v. Durra Data and C. C. Exporters v. B. C. Mills. The appellant wrote to the respondent, requesting for the machinery to be supplied latest by the middle of September, 1971 , and following were the subsequent replies of the respondent showing clearly the acknowledgment f the time span, as well as the stipulated deadline. Therefore, the respondent has committed breach of condition of warranty under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, by not supplying the hot mix plant by the middle of September, 1971. The remedy for breach of warranty under the Sale of Goods Act is as follows: (I) 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 he 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. It) 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. As per the case made, under the Sale of Goods Act, â€Å"(I)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 season 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†, the Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant is entitled to claim by way of damages a total sum of RSI. 2,496. Of time: As already stated, the respondent has indicated under Exhibit 8-9 that it will supply the plant in about 3 to 4 months time from the date of receipt of order subject to conditions beyond its control. The appellant placed the order or 31st July, 1971. Three month’s time expired on 30th December, 1971. Even before the expiry of the period, the respondent wrote Exhibit A-6 the its associate company had advised that the plant will be ready for delivery in the middle of November, and it has advised its associate company to pay special attention and expedite delivery of the plant. The respondent again wrote under Exhibit A-7 stating that in view of the go-slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory of its associate company, there was a delay in the manufacture of the plant and it would be supplied before 10th December, 1971. The plant was ultimately delivered to the appellant on 30th January, 1972. Having regard to the time stipulated by the respondent under Exhibit 8-9 and having regard to the difficulties faced by its associate company, the details of which are stated both in Exhibits A-6 and A-9, there is absolutely no difficulty in holding that the respondent has performed the contract within a reasonable time. On a careful perusal of the correspondence between the parties as referred to above, it is seen that no time was fixed for performance of the contract. There was stipulation by the respondent under Exhibit 8-9 to deliver the plant in about three to four months’ time room the date of receipt of order Subject to conditions beyond its control and a suggestion by the appellant under Exhibit A-2 that the point regarding delivery should be brought to the personal notice of Mr.. Cellular and arrangements may be made to supply the plant by the middle of September, 1971. Thus, it can be seen that there was no consensus ad idem regarding the period within which the plant has to be delivered to the appellant. Hence the term reasonable time would signify any which period of time by which the plant has been delivered provided there is no delay due to circumstances arising because of inefficiency of the respondent. . Whether the appellant is not entitled to claim full amount for damages The appellant wished to claim set off for the sum of RSI. 12,496, under the following counts: 3. 1 For the first count the appellant asked to claim RSI. 2,000 being the cost of 12 volt electrical starter equipment, complete with battery. The trial Court allowed a sum of RSI. 500 under this count, while referring to the Sale of Goods Act where if 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, he buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods; but he may set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price. 3. The other three claims made by the appellant were denied on the basis of the Contract Act, under Section 55, where if the appellant wants to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the contract within the stipulated time and if the appellant accepts performance of the contract, he must issue notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages. It is therefore clear that if the appellant wants to claim damages by resorting to Section 55 of the Contract Act he must issue a notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages at the time when he accepts performance of the contract. In the instant case, the goods were delivered to the appellant only on 30th January, 1972. The appellant issued its writing to the respondent on 8th December, 1971, which was long prior to the date when the goods were supplied to it and the performance of the contract was accepted by the appellant. Since the issue was not made at the time when the appellant accepted the reference of the contract, the appellant cannot resort to Section 55 of the Contract Act to sustain a claim for damages against the respondent. The next question for consideration is whether under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, it is open to the appellant to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the respondent as breach of warranty and set up against the respondent the breach of warranty in diminution of the price. We have already held that time is not the essence of contract and there is no breach of condition on the part of the respondent. Even granting for argument’s sake that time was essence of the contract ND there was a breach of condition by the respondent, even then Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, cannot be attracted, as the definition of â€Å"condition and warranty† in Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters are outside the definition contained in Section 12 of Sale of Goods Act. Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act states that – 12. Condition and warranty. – (1) A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof may be a condition or a warranty. 2) A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. (3) A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. 4) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition or a warranty depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract. It can be noted that section 59 is not applicable as this contract is not stipulated by time or any other such conditions except that it should be completed in reasonable time. Hence it falls outside of the definition of the act and there is no breach of CAS E ANALYSIS The C. V. George and Company vs. Marshall Sons case, is one of appellate Jurisdiction in the High Court as a result of a previous case filed by Marshall Sons against C. V. George and Company. The trial court came to the conclusion that C. V. George and Company was entitled to receive a claim of only RSI. 500 as opposed to their former claim for RSI. 12,496. It ruled in favor of Marshall Sons by announcing a decree for a sum of RSI. 12,096 at 6% interest per annum, from 27th January till the date of plaint and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by this Judgment of the trial court, C. V George and Company filed an appeal in the Madras High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant relied major on the fact that time is of the essence in commercial contracts and that by failing to meet the deadline, Marshall Sons have breached an important condition of the contract and under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, it is open to the appellant to treat a breach of condition as breach of warranty and set p against the respondent the breach of warranty in diminution of the price. The appellant also stated that this entitled it to claim damages under four counts and those amounts should go in diminution of the price claimed by the respondent for the supply of the hot mix plant. After careful consideration, it was clear to the court that there was no actual consensus between the parties regarding the time of the delivery. C. V. George and Company expected to receive the plant by mid September whereas Marshall Sons spoke about supplying the plant within 3-4 months after the interact was signed ( 31st July, 1971). Marshall Sons later said that due to the ‘go slow policy adopted by the workers, they wouldn’t be able to supply it earlier than what they had committed. No objections were raised by C. V George and Company. The plant was finally delivered on 30th January, 1972. We see that, due to the fact that there was no proper agreement about the time between the two parties, Marshall Sons have a stronger case as the court ruled that time was not of the essence for this contract. Keeping in mind all the obstacles faced by Marshall Sons in the delivery of his plant and the stipulated time of 3-4 months the court ruled that the plant was delivered within a reasonable time frame. The case for Marshall Sons Just gets stronger as the contractor isn’t entitled to make a claim for damages. If the appellant wants to claim damages by resorting to Section 55 of the Contract Act he must issue a notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages at the time when he accepts performance of the contract which was not done in this case. Further, under section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, the appellant can treat any breach of a condition n the part of the respondent as a breach of warranty in diminution of the price but this cannot be used in the favor of the appellant in this case. It has already been established that time was not an essence of contract in this case. Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act states that the condition of warranty is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters are outside the definition contained in that section. As a result, the High Court of Madras confirmed the trial and decree of the trial court. C. V. George ND Company had to make the payment they owed and would receive only RSI. 00 for one of their claims. Marshall Sons had a stronger case to present in both, the Trial Court as well as the High Court. How to cite C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons, Papers

C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons Free Essays

The Appellant humbly submits this memorandum for one appeal filed before this Honorable Court.. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based. We will write a custom essay sample on C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons or any similar topic only for you Order Now Statement of Jurisdiction of the Respondent The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the appeal filed before this Honorable Court.. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based. Statement of Facts On 6th May, 1971, C. V George and Company, a contractor in Cochin, requested a quotation for the supply of one hot mix plant from Marshall Sons, a dealer in Hot Mix plants and Mini Crushers. The requested quotation was sent by Marshall Sons on 1 lath May, 1971. After a few days, on 21st June 1971, C. V. George and Company requested for a revised quotation which was sent by Marshall Sons on 29th July, 1971. C. V George and Company finally placed the order for one hot mix plant on 31st July, 1971. In their second quotation, Marshall Sons said that they would supply the hot mix plant within 3-4 months, subject to conditions beyond its control. To this quotation, the contractor sent a letter saying that according to their previous discussions, the hot mix plant should be ready by the last week of September. No reply affirming this condition was sent by the dealer. Nearly a month after the time within which C. V. George and company wanted to have the delivery of the plant, they received a letter from Marshall Sons stating that he plant would be ready for delivery in the middle of next month or even earlier and that they had requested their associate company to expedite delivery of the machine. On 22nd November, 1971 Marshall Sons informed C. V George and Company that due to the go slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory it would be impossible for its associate company to deliver the plan by the end of November and they would try to deliver it by 10th December, 1971. There was no further correspondence between the two parties and the plant was eventually supplied by Marshall Sons on 30th January,1972. Marshall Sons (plaintiff filed a case against C. V George and Company (defendant) in the trial court due to discrepancies between them. The objective of filing the case was to claim the amount for the supply of the hot mix plant from C. V George and Company whereas C. V. George and Company made a claim for damages under four counts, namely: (1) RSI. 2,000 being the cost of 12 volt electrical starter equipment with battery complete;(2) RSI. 321. 97 being the expenditure incurred towards the cost of materials and labor charges for welding and rectification of defects before the commission of the plant: (3) RSI. 2,000 being the value of 0. 75 ton of steel and (4) RSI. 8,175 being the hire charges for hiring plant from the Cochin Corporation. The trial court held that: (1) there was no consensus among the parties regarding the mime within which the hot mix plant was to be supplied, (2) C. V. George would receive an amount of RSI. 500 for the 12 volt electrical supply starter equipment and the other three claims would be set off, (3) even if for any reason, it is held that the amounts claimed under the other three clauses, do not amount to a plea of set off or counterclaim, the evidence adduced, has not established the claim made by the defendant. A decree was given in the favor of the plaintiff for a sum of 12,096 and at an interest rate of 6% annum from 27th’ January, 1971, till the date of plaint and proportionate costs. C. V George and Company appealed against this decree and judgment of the trial court in the high court. Questions Presented by the Appellant The following questions are presented before the court in the instant matter: 1) Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract 2) Whether the contract was carried out by the respondent within a reasonable span of time 3) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages 4) Whether there was a breach of warranty Questions Presented by the Respondent Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract 2) Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages 3) Whether there was a breach Summary of Pleadings of the Appellant 1 . Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract: Ordinarily, time is to be treated as an essence of commercial contracts, as stated by the Counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, when the appellant requested for the machinery to be supplied latest by the middle of September, 1971 , the subsequent replies of the respondent showed clear indication of acknowledgment of the time span, as well as the stipulated deadline. Therefore, the respondent has committed reach of condition of warranty under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, by not supplying the hot mix plant by the middle of September, 1971. . Whether the contract was carried out by the respondent within a reasonable span of time: The appellant’s case states that the hot mix plant should have been supplied by the middle of September, 1971 and the respondent failed to fulfill his part of the contract as the plant was supplied on 30th January, 1972. The appellant further states that this delay was without any rea sonable or probable cause and hence the contract wasn’t fulfilled within reasonable time. 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages: The appellant’s case is that as the hot mix plant was not delivered within the time stipulated, it is entitled to claim damages amounting to 12,496. Due to the delay in the supply of the plant, the appellant had to incur losses. 4. Whether there was a breach of warranty: The appellant claims that there was a breach of warranty and tries to recover the amount he can. He is of the view that part (3) in section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act entitles him to raise a claim. Part (3) in section 12: ‘A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach f which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. ‘ Summary of Pleadings of the Respondent 1 . Whether time is to be considered an essence of the contract: The respondent had stated that the hot mix plant would be supplied within 3-4 months, subject to conditions beyond its control. Though the appellant wanted delivery of the hot mix plant in the middle of September, 1971, the respondent did not send any reply agreeing to the appellant’s stipulation. Marshall Sons sent out another correspondence on 22nd November, stating that in view of the go slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory for the past one month, it would not be possible for its associate company to deliver the plant by the end of November. No objection or protest was raised by the appellant in response to this. There was no consensus regarding the period within which the plant had to be supplied and thus, time was not to be considered as essence. 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim full amount for damages: The appellant aimed to collect its desired sum as compensation, of RSI. 12,496, by using Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act. An important portion of this act states that if the appellant ants to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the contract within the stipulated time and if the appellant accepts performance of the contract, he must issue notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages. In this situation, the appellant issued the notice to the respondent on 8th December, 1971, which was long prior to the date when the goods were supplied to it and the performance of the contract was accepted by the appellant. Therefore, since the claim was not issued at the time when the appellant accepted the performance of he contract, the appellant is unable to resort to Section 55 of the Contract Act to sustain a claim for damages against the respondent. 3. Whether there was a breach of warranty: Granting for argument sake that time was essence of the contract and there was breach of contract by the respondent, even then Section 59 of the Sales of Goods Act cannot be attracted as the definition of â€Å"Condition and Warranty’ in Section 12 of the Sales of Goods Act is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters is outside the definition f Section 12 of Sales of Goods Act. Pleadings and Authorities 1 . Time is to be considered an essence of the contract: The Counsel for the appellant made its case by stating that time was of essence to this particular situation, and is treated as such for commercial contracts, in reference to two such decisions of the Supreme Court in Inhabit Parkas v. Durra Data and C. C. Exporters v. B. C. Mills. The appellant wrote to the respondent, requesting for the machinery to be supplied latest by the middle of September, 1971 , and following were the subsequent replies of the respondent showing clearly the acknowledgment f the time span, as well as the stipulated deadline. Therefore, the respondent has committed breach of condition of warranty under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, by not supplying the hot mix plant by the middle of September, 1971. The remedy for breach of warranty under the Sale of Goods Act is as follows: (I) 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 he 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. It) 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. As per the case made, under the Sale of Goods Act, â€Å"(I)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 season 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†, the Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant is entitled to claim by way of damages a total sum of RSI. 2,496. Of time: As already stated, the respondent has indicated under Exhibit 8-9 that it will supply the plant in about 3 to 4 months time from the date of receipt of order subject to conditions beyond its control. The appellant placed the order or 31st July, 1971. Three month’s time expired on 30th December, 1971. Even before the expiry of the period, the respondent wrote Exhibit A-6 the its associate company had advised that the plant will be ready for delivery in the middle of November, and it has advised its associate company to pay special attention and expedite delivery of the plant. The respondent again wrote under Exhibit A-7 stating that in view of the go-slow policy adopted by the workers in the factory of its associate company, there was a delay in the manufacture of the plant and it would be supplied before 10th December, 1971. The plant was ultimately delivered to the appellant on 30th January, 1972. Having regard to the time stipulated by the respondent under Exhibit 8-9 and having regard to the difficulties faced by its associate company, the details of which are stated both in Exhibits A-6 and A-9, there is absolutely no difficulty in holding that the respondent has performed the contract within a reasonable time. On a careful perusal of the correspondence between the parties as referred to above, it is seen that no time was fixed for performance of the contract. There was stipulation by the respondent under Exhibit 8-9 to deliver the plant in about three to four months’ time room the date of receipt of order Subject to conditions beyond its control and a suggestion by the appellant under Exhibit A-2 that the point regarding delivery should be brought to the personal notice of Mr.. Cellular and arrangements may be made to supply the plant by the middle of September, 1971. Thus, it can be seen that there was no consensus ad idem regarding the period within which the plant has to be delivered to the appellant. Hence the term reasonable time would signify any which period of time by which the plant has been delivered provided there is no delay due to circumstances arising because of inefficiency of the respondent. . Whether the appellant is not entitled to claim full amount for damages The appellant wished to claim set off for the sum of RSI. 12,496, under the following counts: 3. 1 For the first count the appellant asked to claim RSI. 2,000 being the cost of 12 volt electrical starter equipment, complete with battery. The trial Court allowed a sum of RSI. 500 under this count, while referring to the Sale of Goods Act where if 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, he buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods; but he may set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price. 3. The other three claims made by the appellant were denied on the basis of the Contract Act, under Section 55, where if the appellant wants to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the contract within the stipulated time and if the appellant accepts performance of the contract, he must issue notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages. It is therefore clear that if the appellant wants to claim damages by resorting to Section 55 of the Contract Act he must issue a notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages at the time when he accepts performance of the contract. In the instant case, the goods were delivered to the appellant only on 30th January, 1972. The appellant issued its writing to the respondent on 8th December, 1971, which was long prior to the date when the goods were supplied to it and the performance of the contract was accepted by the appellant. Since the issue was not made at the time when the appellant accepted the reference of the contract, the appellant cannot resort to Section 55 of the Contract Act to sustain a claim for damages against the respondent. The next question for consideration is whether under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, it is open to the appellant to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the respondent as breach of warranty and set up against the respondent the breach of warranty in diminution of the price. We have already held that time is not the essence of contract and there is no breach of condition on the part of the respondent. Even granting for argument’s sake that time was essence of the contract ND there was a breach of condition by the respondent, even then Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, cannot be attracted, as the definition of â€Å"condition and warranty† in Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters are outside the definition contained in Section 12 of Sale of Goods Act. Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act states that – 12. Condition and warranty. – (1) A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof may be a condition or a warranty. 2) A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. (3) A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. 4) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition or a warranty depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract. It can be noted that section 59 is not applicable as this contract is not stipulated by time or any other such conditions except that it should be completed in reasonable time. Hence it falls outside of the definition of the act and there is no breach of CAS E ANALYSIS The C. V. George and Company vs. Marshall Sons case, is one of appellate Jurisdiction in the High Court as a result of a previous case filed by Marshall Sons against C. V. George and Company. The trial court came to the conclusion that C. V. George and Company was entitled to receive a claim of only RSI. 500 as opposed to their former claim for RSI. 12,496. It ruled in favor of Marshall Sons by announcing a decree for a sum of RSI. 12,096 at 6% interest per annum, from 27th January till the date of plaint and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by this Judgment of the trial court, C. V George and Company filed an appeal in the Madras High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant relied major on the fact that time is of the essence in commercial contracts and that by failing to meet the deadline, Marshall Sons have breached an important condition of the contract and under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, it is open to the appellant to treat a breach of condition as breach of warranty and set p against the respondent the breach of warranty in diminution of the price. The appellant also stated that this entitled it to claim damages under four counts and those amounts should go in diminution of the price claimed by the respondent for the supply of the hot mix plant. After careful consideration, it was clear to the court that there was no actual consensus between the parties regarding the time of the delivery. C. V. George and Company expected to receive the plant by mid September whereas Marshall Sons spoke about supplying the plant within 3-4 months after the interact was signed ( 31st July, 1971). Marshall Sons later said that due to the ‘go slow policy adopted by the workers, they wouldn’t be able to supply it earlier than what they had committed. No objections were raised by C. V George and Company. The plant was finally delivered on 30th January, 1972. We see that, due to the fact that there was no proper agreement about the time between the two parties, Marshall Sons have a stronger case as the court ruled that time was not of the essence for this contract. Keeping in mind all the obstacles faced by Marshall Sons in the delivery of his plant and the stipulated time of 3-4 months the court ruled that the plant was delivered within a reasonable time frame. The case for Marshall Sons Just gets stronger as the contractor isn’t entitled to make a claim for damages. If the appellant wants to claim damages by resorting to Section 55 of the Contract Act he must issue a notice to the respondent of his intention to claim damages at the time when he accepts performance of the contract which was not done in this case. Further, under section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, the appellant can treat any breach of a condition n the part of the respondent as a breach of warranty in diminution of the price but this cannot be used in the favor of the appellant in this case. It has already been established that time was not an essence of contract in this case. Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act states that the condition of warranty is limited to stipulations in a contract of sale with reference to goods and stipulations with regard to time and other matters are outside the definition contained in that section. As a result, the High Court of Madras confirmed the trial and decree of the trial court. C. V. George ND Company had to make the payment they owed and would receive only RSI. 00 for one of their claims. Marshall Sons had a stronger case to present in both, the Trial Court as well as the High Court. How to cite C.V. George and Company VS. Marshall Sons, Papers

The Day Apple Booted Up free essay sample

According to the BBC news, Apple had more cash to spend than the United States (2011). Apple stores each sell an average of $93,150 worth of products every day, which is equivalent to $3,900 an hour or $65 a minute every day of the year. With the amount of cash they have now, they can go to McDonalds and buy everyone in the world two big mac meals, 1 vanilla cone ice-cream and 1 chocolate chip cookie. II. Relevance Statement: According to the CNBC survey, half of the US households have at least one apple product. Let’s take this room for instance; I am pretty sure most of us have at least one apple product. So I am going to tell you how this company had all started. III. Credibility Statement: As someone who is a big fan of the apple products and who would wait in lines to buy the latest apple product, I was interested in how this company was born and what makes it different from all the other companies. We will write a custom essay sample on The Day Apple Booted Up or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page After my own research, I found out that this company has a very interesting history, as interesting as the products they sell. IV. Thesis Statement: The founding persons, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak found the first apple computer, APPLE I, on April 1st 1976. This was the day when the apple company was formed and nobody, not even Jobs knew what was coming next: that Apple would create the look and feel of almost every desktop in the world and start our love affair with the personal computer including portable music players. Directional Transition: Now that you understand the focus of my presentation, let’s take a closer look at how it all started. Body I. On April 1st, 1976, Cupertino, California, the Apple computers booted up with their first computer APPLE 1. A. Steve Wozniak was the technical brains behind the company while Steve jobs was a person who dreams big and he always wanted others to dream along with him. 1. Jobs came up with the name of the company inspired by an orchard in Oregon where he and his friends used to do their work 2. Regarding the logo, it started with a picture of Isaac newton under an apple tree working and later changed to the picture of an apple with a small part of it bitten off. B. Most computers in 1976 were room sized with defense department sized price tags, but Wozniak had been tinkering with a new design, his computer was different. 1. It was small, easy and cheap to use. 2. Jobs had noticed the stir it caused when he took it to a local computer club. 3. Steve Wosniak thought that their small partnership would be fun even though they might not make much money(Grossman,2003). 4. They did not go and celebrate that day, they just ontinued with their daily work until months later. 5. To raise capital for their new company, Jobs sold his Volkswagen van. Directional Transition: Once the APPLE foundation was established, it started producing more and more products that took over the electronic world. II After APPLE 1, the apple company started producing unique products that were innovative and simple which grabbed the attention of every electronic user. A. On January 24,1984, Steve Jobs introduced the first commercially successful personal computer with a mouse and a graphic user interface. B. Later they came up with macbooks that are known for their fast processors and sleek simple design. C. On October 23, 2001, Apple introduced the iPod, which took the portable music player industry by storm, selling 220 million units by 2009. D. The Apple industry also came up with the iPhone and the iPad. E. It grew up to be the most admired company in the world and also the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit, more than Google and Microsoft combined. Directional Transition: With all this line of products, and more coming in, life has been much easier for students and the working class. Conclusion I. Restatement of Thesis: Specifically I have discussed the day the company APPLE was started by the two Steves and how the company brought up revolutionary products that affected the world. II.

10 Ways to Turn Your Part Time Job Into a Full Time Job

10 Ways to Turn Your Part Time Job Into a Full Time Job You’ve got a great part-time or contract gig with a company you love. Maybe it suited you best at the time you were hired, or maybe you just love the company and wanted to get your foot in the door. Either way, you’re ready to try moving up the ladder and getting a more permanent position. Here are 10 strategies to get you started on the path to turning your part time job into a full time job. 1. Listen to the bossYou’re at a meeting, and your boss expresses a concern or unveils a new goal. Quietly start doing everything you can to show her serious results in making that goal a reality. As soon as you’ve got something to show, or some serious momentum, clue her in on your efforts. You may just blow the rest of the team out of the water.2. HustlePut a post-it on your desk, or, you know, a notification on your phone, that says â€Å"everyone else is working harder.† Let that scare you for a second, but don’t let it be true. If you want to rest on full-time laurels, you have to hustle 10x  harder to achieve them. Come early, stay late, get involved. Prove that you’re an asset by working harder, doing more, and showing more results. How else do you think you’ll get hired for good?3. Get creativeDon’t just do your project, turn it in, and shut down until you get the next one. Don’t just focus on the one aspect of the company that lands in your lap on a part-time basis. Try thinking about how your piece of the puzzle fits in with the rest of the company, and try to keep the big picture in mind. If you can show not just the value of your own work, but that you have a good sense of the company as a whole, you’ll distinguish yourself among the other freelancers and temporary employees.4. Be better than you are on paperMaybe your resume-worthy experience is kind of thin, but you really get what’s going on here, in this field or in this company. Prove it. Show you’re wise beyond y our laundry list of accomplishments. Show your talent and your drive. If you prove yourself to be extra insightful, your boss won’t care what’s on your resume when it comes time to make hiring decisions.5. Be proactiveIf you want to graduate to full-time, you should make your boss feel like you already are full-time. That means going above and beyond on every project, insinuating yourself into the most important discussions, proving that you’re already an asset and part of the team. Going the extra mile now will make it very easy for your boss to see you in that rosy full-time light when it’s time to make decisions.6. Speak upDon’t just meekly submit your work. Submit your work with insightful feedback, or the great ideas you’ve got for how to help the company progress. Showing your investment in your team and the work you’re doing can go a long way toward getting you a full-time gig.7. Sell itIf you believe in the company, sell it. G et out on social media, spread the word. Be such a good spokesperson that the company is terrified to lose you, lest you focus your excellent attentions somewhere else. If you believe in them, they’ll believe in you. It’s mutually beneficial!8. TeamworkDon’t just distinguish yourself and go about doing anything necessary to achieve your personal goals. Nobody likes a mercenary. Be a team player instead. Don’t just prove to your boss that you’re essential, make sure your team knows it as well. Stand together and you’ll be stronger for it.9. Play the long gameAs much as possible, show long-term interest in the company’s strategy and goals for the future, and indeed the future of the industry. That means staying abreast of trends and innovations, and constantly engaging in how to advance the company in the field. Even if you don’t get this particular full-time gig, you’ll be an asset in the next place you look.10. Self-star tCome early, stay late, get involved. Don’t go to a meeting without having a few  suggestions or ideas. Make an effort with every project, on every team. Show you’re  more or less full-time already; hiring you permanently would be an inevitable  formality. Sometimes it’s the little things and the extra above-and-beyond details  that will really make a difference in how you’re valued.

Haber De and Haber Que in Spanish

Haber De and Haber Que in Spanish Two of the most common phrases using haber are haber que and haber de, both of which can be used to express obligation or the need to perform certain actions. Keep in Mind Haber que, usually in the form hay que, is used in the third person to say that an action is necessary or essential.The more formal haber de  can be used to say that a person or entity needs to take  an action.Both haber que and haber de are followed by infinitives. Hay Que and Other Forms of Haber Que Haber que is the more common, although it is used only in the third-person singular, which is hay que in the indicative present tense. In the present tense haber que is often translated as it is necessary, although in context you might also translate it with phrases such as you need to, you should, you have to, or we need to. Note that the phrase hay que doesnt explicitly state who or what needs to take the action, only that its necessary. But if the intended meaning points to who needs to take the action, that can be specified in the English translation as shown in some of the examples below. The phrase is followed by an infinitive, the most basic verb form. A veces hay que perder para ganar. (Sometimes it is necessary to lose in order to win.)Para ser doctor, hay que estudiar mucho. (In order to be a doctor, you need to study a lot.)No hay que comprar un mà ³vil a un nià ±o antes de los 12 à ³ 13 aà ±os. (It isnt necessary to buy a cellphone for children before theyre 12 or 13.)Se queremos hijos felices hay que enseà ±arle a navegar en tempestades. (If we want happy children, we need to teach them to navigate through turmoil.)Hay que comer solo cuando tengamos hambre. (We should eat only when were hungry.)Hay muchos libros que hay que leer. (There are many books that need to be read.)No es suficiente criticar al presidente,  ¡hay que votar! (It isnt enough to criticize the president - you need to vote!) Haber que can also be used in other tenses and the subjunctive mood: Esta vez habà ­a que ganar. (This time it was necessary to win.)Hubo que esperar 30 aà ±os. (It was necessary to wait 30 years.)Tarde o temprano va a haber que pagarlo. (Sooner or later it is going to be necessary to pay it.)El gobierno cambiar lo que haya que cambiar. (The government will change what needs to be changed.)Nunca pensà © que hubiera que decir eso. (I never thought it would be necessary to say this.) Haber De Haber de can be used with a similar meaning, although this use is usually fairly formal or literary. Haber is conjugated fully, not confined to the third person in the way haber que is.  ¿Quà © he de estudiar para poder escribir libros? (What do I need to study in order to be able to write books?)Has de pensar en tu vida. (You need to think about your life.)Hemos de determinar el nà ºmero de gramos de nitrà ³geno que hemos de obtener. (We have to determine the number of grams of nitrogen we need.) In some areas, haber de also can express probability in much the same way that have to (or sometimes must) in English can express likelihood rather than obligation: Aquà ­ ha de caer la lluvia. (Rain must have fallen here.)La solucià ³n al problema ha de ser difà ­cil. (The solution to the problem must be difficult.)Has de ser rica. (You must be rich.) Finally, haber de in the conditional tense can be used, especially in questions, to express the idea that something doesnt make sense:  ¿Por quà © no habrà ­a de darle la mano a la reina? (Asked not to get information, but to express amazement: Why shouldnt he shake hands with the queen?) ¿Por quà © el universo habrà ­a de tomarse la molestia de existir? (Why would the universe go to the bother of existing?) ¿Por quà © habà ­an de creer la verdad, si la mentira resultaba mucho ms excitante? (Why should they have believed the truth, if the lie turned out to be much more exciting?) ¿Quià ©n habrà ­a de hacer eso en Panam? (Said in an incredulous tone: Who would do that in Panama?)

Typologies of terrorism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Typologies of terrorism - Essay Example dent took place in April 1999 where an attack by 2 students at Denver, Colorado, resulted in the deaths of 15, while more than 20 people were wounded. This qualifies as a terroristic act as innocent civilians died, it was as a resultant of a stereotypical ideological goal and meant to create fear on the targets. The type of terrorism involved in the two terrorist acts mentioned above according to the definition by Malisow (2008) was state terrorism. This is so because the terroristic actions were directed towards the members of different country or even origin other than United States of America. The first terroristic act for example was directed towards Pakistan government by the United States government whereas in the second terrorist act, it was directed towards students who are different from the â€Å"normal† citizen of the United States (this was so because it was directed towards blacks and Hispanics by two students who were presumed to be white

Global Warming Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 12

Global Warming - Essay Example The earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases whose purpose is to prevent some of the heat of the sun to escape into the atmosphere when it is reflected by the Earth. This helps maintaining a certain degree of acceptable temperature on the Earth. When these gases rise in concentration, they start absorbing sun’s heat which results in rise in temperature to an unacceptable degree. Due to the rise in temperature, much of the living organisms are affected most of which die. The concentration of gases occurs, for example, by the release of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere through natural processes and also by industries and factories that burn fossil fuels. â€Å"Around the world, the Earths average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic† (National Geographic Society, para.2). Human beings are the most important stakeholders of global warming. They will have to understand that their communities are at stake due to abrupt rise in sea level, massive storms and hurricanes, and heat and cold waves. For example, the year 2007 brought worst floods in the history of many countries like Malaysia, UK, North Korea, and other African countries. Pakistan saw the worst flood in 2010 that took millions of lives and took the shelter of thousands of people. After human beings, the next important stakeholders are the animals and plants. Hence, global warming is becoming a serious issue, according to 3,146 climate experts (CNN World). Businesses are the only stakeholders that will not make movements against the global arming issue so much so that they will even try to stop the decrease in global warming. This is because businesses tend to run such factories and industries that emit CO2 into the atmosphere and no business would want to end his business. But not all businesses work in this manner. For example, FedEx is such