Q: Elaborate the citation of Maula Bux v Union of India, the Supreme Court ?

Ans:

Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969

In every case a party must prove the extent of the loss suffered by it. The exception, however, was for cases where the damage was difficult or impossible to prove and in such cases the requirement to prove the extent of loss was dispensed with.

 In Maula Bux v Union of India, the Supreme Court explained that the expression is intended to cover different classes of contracts. In case of breach of some contracts it may be impossible for the court to assess compensation arising from the breach. It is in these circumstances that the sum named by parties may be taken into consideration as the measure of reasonable compensation, provided it is a genuine pre-estimate and not in the nature of a penalty.


Where loss in terms of money can be determined, the party claiming compensation has necessarily to prove the loss suffered and in such instances, the courts are bound to assess the reasonableness of compensation claimed. It is while doing so that the courts will apply the principles under section 73.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Difference between extra work and additional work ?

Ans: Additional work usually comes within the terms of contract and therefore it does not amount to additional payment. It is significant to take into account whether the work done is outside the scope of the construction contract and therefore whether it falls within the ambit of extra work or not. The object and purpose of the construction contract, terms and conditions of the contract and intention of the parties is important to determine whether extra work done by the contractor amounts to an additional payment to the contractor or not. x
Read more

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.
Read more