If in London the quality of the goods was found particularly good the premium was obtained from the London purchaser, that is to say, the premium was obtained not as in terms of the contract but as a special payment if the goods happened to be of good quality. , till the title in the goods passed to the defendants under the con. It is true that the liability of the, plaintiff is an additional burden thrown upon him under the terms of the contract but it is of ‘no significance in considering the question as to whether the as transfer of title to the goods at the time of shipment from the plaintiff to the defendants.
P-19 from the plaintiff in respect of all the advances to be made by the defendants. It was also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that “premium” was paid to the plaintiff in case the goods supplied were of special quality. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that according to the contract the goods were to be marked with the plaintiff’s mark. It only means that the buyer resold the goods to the London purchaser with the mark of the plaintiff.
In some statements of account sent by the ‘defendants the plaintiff has been debited various amounts for shortage in weight at London. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Counsel for the plaintiff that the clause with regard to the. lien is not consistent with the theory of the transactions being an outright sale,. contracts but the price alone was fixed on a c. terms if there was an out right sale at Madras between the parties. The primary object of the contract was that there,was a purchase by the defendants from the plaintiff of the goods for resale best Chandigarh legal services in the United Kingdom and top advocate in Chandigarh keeping with this object the buyer stipulated with the seller for delivery of the goods abroad and for that purpose adopted a c.
top lawyer in Chandigarh other words the title in the goods passed to the lawyers in Chandigarh defendants at the moment of shipment of the goods and the fact was that interest was charged on all advances only upto the date of shipment. it is the admitted position that for purchasing skins and hides, the plaintiff was taking large sums of money as advances from the defendants. It was also contended by the plaintiff that According to the terms of the contract the landed weight was to be accepted and the plaintiff was to be responsible for the selection and quality of goods at the destination where inspection would be made by the defendants’ agents or the ultimate London buyers.
On behalf of ‘the plantiff reference was also made to the fact that the contracts provided for a Hen on all the, goods covered by the contracts for all moneys advanced by the defendants, including expenses incurred and interest thereon. It lawyers was pointed out that if the defendants were purchasers the premium should go to them but in some cases the premium was paid to the plaintiff. There was also a suggestion on behalf of the plaintiff that there cannot be a contract of sale subject to c.
It is true that in some of the defendants’ letters such as Ex. It is true that a clause of this description is unusual but it is not inconsistent with the theory that there was a sale of goods between the parties at Madras. We have best legal in Chandigarh already observed that the contracts in this case were not c. But it should be noticed that in making such advances, the defendants were only acting as creditors of the plaintiff and were, therefore, entitled to charge interest on such advances till they actually purchased the goods from the plaintiff.
, in June, 1949 the defendants took a regular hypothecation best legal service in Chandigarh deed, Ex. It is open to the plaintiff to agree that even after the sale had taken place any dispute with regard to the quality of the goods and selection may be submitted to arbitration in the United Kingdom. It is in evidence, that the “premium” was extra price obtained in London if the Board of Control was satisfied about the special quality of the goods (vide D- 1O). It appears from the statements of account that interest, was charged on advances upto the date of shipment.
The charge or lien on the, goods, therefore, subsisted till the time of shipment i. After the purchase of the goods they did not charge any interest on the moneys paid by them. Exhibits P-7, P- 10 and P- 1 8, show that for some shipments the premium was paid to the plaintiff. We do not think 9 there is any substance in this argument. It is a payment therefore, L/S5SCI-3 8 made outside the terms of the contract and there is nothing significant if the defendants considered it fair and just to pay the whole of the premium to the plaintiff or to share it with him in some cases.
1, Ayyalu Chetti is that in some cases the premium was paid to the plaintiff ex gratia. It is not possible to accept this argument as correct. ‘The explanation of D. It appears that on a later date, i. It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the term with regard to arbitration “according to the custom obtaining in United Kingdom” was not compatible with the theory of a sale between the parties. The plaintiff was also informed about the claims made by the London purchasers on the ground of low standard and selection, that is to say, the plaintiff was made answerable for weight as well as quality.
We find from the several statements of account that reference is made to all such advances. These advances together with interest thereon are deducted from the sale-price payable to the plaintiff and for the balance alone cheques were sent: to him. P-10 it was mentioned that the bales were sent with the plaintiff’s mark in some shipments but this circumstance has not significance.