Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Col. D.I. Mac Pherson Vs. M.N. Appanna and Anr.
AIR1951SC184, [1951]2SCR161
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Saiyid Fazl Ali, B.K. Mukherjea and N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.
Decided On: February 9th, 1951
FACTS:
The plaintiff desired to buy “Morvern Lodge” owned by the first defendant in Mercara. Mr Youngman was the manager of the Morvern Lodge. Mr White was the manager of another one of the firs defendant’s estates. The plaintiff conveyed his offer to buy the Morvern Lodge to the first defendant. MacPherson responded to the offer saying that he would not accept anything fewer than 10,000 Rupees. The plaintiff took this to be a counter-offer and accepted it immediately. In the meantime, the first defendant accepted another offer made by the second defendant. The second defendant paid the 11,000 rupees and occupied the Bungalow. The Judicial Commissioner of Coorg held in favour of the plaintiff. It was against this order that this appeal was made under section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.
ISSUE:
Whether a contract was culminated when the plaintiff signified his acceptance of the “counter-offer” made by the first defendant?
JUDGMENT:
The court, using Harvey v. Facey as precedent, held that there was no concluded contract in the present case. In Havey v. Facey, the Lordships held that the mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor would sell contains no implied contract to sell at that price.
The plaintiff himself in his letter responding to the alleged counter-offer said that he was confirming his own offer and not the counter-offer of the plaintiff. Even the manager of the disputed estate, Mr Youngman treated it to be an offer and not an acceptance to any counter-offers made by the plaintiff. Any offer to be made by the plaintiff was subject to the acceptance by the first defendant. On these grounds the court held that the first defendant had made no counter-offer and was merely inviting offers.
The court also rebutted the contention of the plaintiff that the managers of the estate of the defendant were biased towards the second defendant to his prejudice. Mr Youngman had found the offer made by the second defendant improper and did not even communicate the same to the first defendant. Mr Youngman’s learning, if there was any, could only be said to be in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, it was difficult for the court to find that Mr Youngman had deliberately misdescribed the plaintiff’s acceptance as his offer
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
