AIR 1929 PRIVY COUNCIL 179

Privy Council

(FROM PESHAWAR)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Lord Shaw, Lord Atkin, Sir Lancelot Sanderson , JJJ

*(A) Evidence-Vendor suing for damages on breach of contract for sale-Vendor's evidence about purchaser's delay corroborated in many particulars-Purchaser calling writer as witness-No question asked to contradict vendor's story -Contradiction ought to have been made in examination-in-chief of the witness. Where in a suit by vendors for damages for breach of contract of sale, the plaintiffs' evidence of the purchasers' grounds for requesting delay is corroborated in more than one particular and the writer when called by the purchaser is not asked a single question to contradict the story given by the vendor, it is not correct to say that the vendor ought to have raised the question of the grounds in cross-examination of the witness. Contradiction, if any could be made, ought to have been given by the witness in examination-in-chief.(Para 180) *(B) Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.74— Sum fixed in contract as damages-Damages suffered must be proved. The effect of S. 74 is to disentitle the plaintiffs to recover simpliciter the sum fixed in the contract whether penalty or liquidated damages. The plaintiffs must prove the damages they have suffered.(Para 180) *(C) Contract A....