Posts

Q: Describe about the citation of Mundy v. New York, 27 N.Y.S. 469 (1894) ?

Ans:  In an American case Mundy v. New York, 27 N.Y.S. 469 (1894), it was held that while a flood was outside the control of the party, the flood delay was inexcusable because similar flooding had occurred previously and was thus foreseeable. These principles also form the basis of the UNIDROIT principles and are thus, universally accepted.

Q: Elaborate the citation of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC) ?

Ans:  Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC). In Obrascon, it was held that an experienced contractor must make its own assessment of all available data and come to its own conclusions, rather than to ‘slavishly’ accept the information from the employer. Failure to carry out an independent assessment of grounds conditions would disentitle a contractor from claiming damages, and would entitle the employer to terminate the contract for delay on the part of the contractor attributable to ground conditions.

Q: Write about the citation of Simplex Concrete Piles v. Union of India, CS(OS) No. 614A/2002, judgment dated 23.02.2010 (Delhi High Court) ?

Ans:  Simplex Concrete Piles v. Union of India, CS(OS) No. 614A/2002, judgment dated 23.02.2010 (Delhi High Court): Any exclusionary clause itself is contrary to law and the public policy of India, and therefore, any such clause would be void initio. Moreover, under section 54 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if a defaulting party has derived `any advantage under a contract, the party in breach cannot retain the benefit and would have to compensate the non-defaulting party. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court of India in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 had held that the courts will not enforce and will strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract/clause entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power (followed in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No. 12238 of 2018, judgment dated 02.04.2019).

Q: Describe the citation of Asian Techs Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 10 SCC 354 (SC)?

Ans: Asian Techs Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 10 SCC 354 (SC): Exclusionary clauses would not be binding on any judicial authority, and would only prohibit the employer from entertaining an

Q: Elaborate the citation of N. Sathyapalan v. State Of Kerala, (2007) 13 SCC 43 (SC) ?

Ans:  x N. Sathyapalan v. State Of Kerala, (2007) 13 SCC 43 (SC):   If a delay is attributable solely to the employer, and is also significant, then a contractor would be entitled to damages, notwithstanding an exclusionary clause.

Q: Delineate the citation of General Manager, Northern Railways v. Sarvesh Chopra, AIR 2002 SC 1272 (Supreme Court of India (SC) ?

Ans:  General Manager, Northern Railways v. Sarvesh Chopra, AIR 2002 SC 1272 (Supreme Court of India (SC)): A contractor (the non-defaulting party) would be entitled to claim damages provided that at the time of acceptance of ‘extension of time’ for performance of the contract, the contractor gives notice of his intention to claim damages for the delay.

Q: What is quantum merit in case of indivisible contract?

Ans: In case of indivisible contract, the amount will be paid if the work is completed and the amount will not be paid if the work is done partly.  x