Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Jayz alliance

Presents

Business Law
Case Studies

THE SHOW
Anjana Development Services Vs. Irrigation Development Division

digital fiction and logo are the trademark of digital fiction Under copyrights 2004-2007.All rights reserved Used under license digital fiction

Case Decision No 8154 Date of decision: 2065/11/18


Case : Breach Of Contract (Actual Breach)

Related Law : Contract Act 2053 Sec (1.2.E) ( )


F a c t

by the plaintiff and sue other party for belief that they are the one not following the contract acts condition and providing the facilities; for the purpose of extension of contract as expressed before in their earlier period. The Plaintiff filed the suit as per sec 90 (1) Of NCA.

Unable to complete the contract act

1. Definition of Breach A breach is the failure to act or perform in the manner called for by the contract. When the contract calls for performance, such as painting an owners home, the failure to paint or to paint properly is a breach of contract.

About
Receipt Of Contract On Date 2056/1/2 On Account Of 42 Lakhs For 30 Months Contract Of Completion Of 9 Km road. With additional work to total 93 lakh to Anjana Development Services from Irrigation Development Division

Court View / Facts presented:


1. Huge Work due; incomplete ; Request sent for extension of contract on date 2058/1/19 2. Expressed Defied by Ramesh; On Extension Of Contract With Running Bill Of 2058/1/19 Of Rs 779027.30 3. Replacement Of Ceos On The Assignee Company

4. 5. 6. 7.

Kept Receiving Of Running Bills Last Running Bill Receipt From Harish Chandra Raunear At 2059/3/20 Request Of Last Bill to Tejnarayan Pandey rather Requested Stoppage Of Work Until Further Notice By Mid-west Directives. Receipt Of B.N 198 For Extension At 2059/9/30.

8. Acceptance Of 96% Of Work Report By The Other Company 9. Receipt Of Letter No. 471 At 2060/4/23 For Stoppage Of Work For Non Completion Of Work

Summary on Judgment:
Sindhuli Court/District Court : 2061/1/10 : Supported On Performance of contract to the Pleading party. As per act no 95 and because of receipt of letter on the date of 2 years to which should have been to 21 days. Janakpur Court/ Applet court: 2063/8/24: Counter the District Court Performance for the contract even if the defendant presents the strong subject to contract. Supreme Court: 2065/11/18 : Support to the defendant

Defendants View
1. work was not as per the time allotted and as per rule of 2053 sec 93 2. six months extension; work was still not completed 3. the extension is not mentioned in the contract, rather expressed, 4. court cannot interfere in the contract for extension

Petitioners View/Pleadings
1. 2. 3. 4. As Per Rule 84, 86, 89, 90(1) and 95 My Contract Cannot Be Voided Why Was The Running Bill Given to such extend Of 21 to 22th time. Dispatch Of Letter Of Extension After Two Years Rather Than On 21 Days The work was due as because of slow administrations work.

sec 86 defines : performance of contract ; for payment of damage if isnt enough to the state of recovery. sec 90: states the legal code that has been repealed.

Decision Questions
Q1: Is It Possible For The Extension Of Contract If The Victim party Asks For ? Q2: Is It Possible For The Person Who Breach Contract To Ask For The Other For Performance? Q3: When Can A Court Oblige The Party To Perform The Contract?

Court Decisions:
1.

there are no provisions in law for contract extensions decisions

2.

noninterference of court on the ground of contract obligations Provision exist on compensation to the victim party on the ground of loss on measurable goods not antiques

3.

Reasons/Basis of decision:
1. 1. For the first question the party to extension for the contract there must fulfill that the extension is mentioned in the contract and the will of another party

2. For any person who themselves breach the contract cannot ask for the performance of another as per the Nepalese contract act 2053 sec 83 (2)(e) the court sees if performance be compelled the other must first fulfill their own duty. 3. However the damage for measurable goods can be made recoverable but in circumstances that the victim party themselves are not against the law, whereby here the Nepalese contract act 2053 sec 83 (2)(e) cannot enforce the contract. Be it the compulsion to fulfill contract if damage be recovered.

FACTS:

Hartland Developers, Inc., agreed Tips could no longer afford to make to build an airplane payments. Hartland ceased work as hangar for Robert Tips of San instructed Antonio for $300,000, payable in before the final completion of the building, three installments of $100,000, having been paid $200,000 at the time. He with the final payment due upon sued the completion of the building and Tips for breach of contract the issuance of a certificate of completion by the engineer representing Tips. The evidence DECISION: Judgment for Tips, shows that Tips' representative, subject to offsets. The trial judge Mr. Lavelle, instructed Hartland to based his damages cease work on the building because assessment on anticipatory repudiation of contract. The evidence that Tips' representative, Lavelle, instructed Hartland to cease work on the project because TIPS V Tips no longer could afford to HARTLAND make payments was sufficient to DEVELOPERS, INC., 961 SW2D 618 (TEX APP 1998) support this finding.