The plaintiffs declared on a contract by the defendants to purchase certain iron of the plaintiff alleging a promise by the defendants, ‘that, if the delivery of the said iron should riot be required by the defendants on or before the 30th day of April, 1845, the said iron was to be paid for by the defendants on the day and year last aforesaid’ , and averring that the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to deliver the said iron in terms of the contract, that the 30th of April was past before the commencement of the suit, but that the defendants had not paid for the iron :-Held, first, that, under the averment of readiness and willingness to deliver the iron, the plaintiffs were not bound to shew that any specific iron had been appropriated by them for that purpose, and, secondly, that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover on the above contract the full price of the iron, and not merely the damages which they had sustained by the defendants’ breach of contract.
[1845] EngR 1196 (B), (1845) 2 Car and K 153
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.304338 br>