Section 3 : Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals
2018 PLC(CS) 975 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHARIQ-UL-HAQ VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION LIMITED
Ss. 3, 8 & 9—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—Object, scope and purpose—Agreement may be made which expressly or impliedly anticipates that it will be superseded by a later, more formal agreement and Letter of Intent is one example of such agreements—Where court finds that parties have intended to enter into a binding legal agreement but have not expressly agreed all necessary terms, court may imply terms by reference to past practice of parties or any relevant trade custom in order to give effect to their intentions—If intention is key factor in assessment of enforceability, it must be remembered that test of intention is objective—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) means a document that expresses mutual accord on an issue between two or more parties—Memorandum of understanding is generally recognized as binding even if no legal claim could be based on rights and obligations laid down in them—To be legally operative, a MoU must (i) identify contracting parties; (ii) spell out subject matter of agreement and its objectives; (iii) summarize essential terms of agreement; and (iv) must be signed by contracting parties—It expresses a convergence of will between parties indicating an intended common line of action—MoU most often, is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement—MoU is put in place to establish a clear understanding of how the deal will practically function and each party’s role and compensation.
2016 CLC 780 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. MUMTAZ MAJEED VS MUHAMMAD INAYAT
Ss. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 21 (c)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.3 & 7—Suit for specific performance—Part performance of agreement—Reasonable certainty—Requirements—Decree for specific performance of part of an agreement was passed by the courts below—Validity—Alleged agreement to sell did not contain full particulars of suit property—Agreement, the terms of which could not be found with reasonable certainty could not be specifically enforced—Merely stating the name of village in which the land was situated did not satisfy the requirements with regard to certainty and exactitude of the description of property which was sought to be alienated—Material contradictions in the statements of witnesses produced by the plaintiff were on record—Present suit did not come within the ambit of Ss.14, 15, 16 & 17, Specific Relief Act, 1877—Both the courts below had committed misreading of evidence—Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
2010 CLD 599 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GULSHAN ADAMJEE VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL Bank LTD.
Ss.2, 3 & 4—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.68–Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S.5(d)—Suit for recovery of amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs)–Plea of plaintiff that FDRs in his favour were issued in years, 1970 and 1971 by Dacca Branch of the Bank; that in November, 1971, due to deteriorating conditions of East Pakistan, he could not present FDRs to Dacca Branch for encashment, thus, he wrote letter to President of the Bank enclosing therewith original FDRs requesting for transferring its funds to its Branch at Karachi for issuance of fresh FDRs; that President sent such letter along with FDRs to his Karachi Head Office to carry out instructions given by plaintiff, but no action was taken by the Bank, which later on returned FDRs to plaintiff after fall of East Pakistan; and that such act of President of the Bank accepting FDRs had amounted to an undertaking and agreement by Bank to issue fresh FDRs from Karachi and having failed to do so, Bank was liable to pay to plaintiff amounts of FDRs along with interest–Plea of Bank was that FDRs issued by its Dacca Branch had to be presented to Dacca Branch for encashment and could not be sent to its President for such purpose–Validity—FDRs had been issued by Bank acknowledging that amounts mentioned therein were received by Bank for a specific period of time and to pay at agreed rate of interest mentioned therein on production thereof—No condition was mentioned on FDRs that only Dacca Branch would be liable to pay its amount—Such act of President of the Bank accepting FDRs for encashment, even if there was any condition presenting same at issuing Branch, would tantamount to waiver of such condition by corporate entity and Bank was liable to pay amount covered by FDRs together with agreed rate of interest–Plaintiff after fall of East Pakistan could not present FDRs to Dacca Branch due to its closure by Bank—Bank had concealed evidence pertaining to date when FDRs were received for compliance of plaintiffs instructions to transfer amounts thereof to its Karachi Branch—Presumption in such circumstances could be drawn that such evidence, if brought on record, would have gone against the Bank—Plaintiff had deposited amount of FDRs with Bank as legal entity, thus, closure of its Dacca Branch or winding up of its business in a particular area would not absolve Bank from its liability to pay amount deposited with Bank through its Dacca Branch—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2008 CLD 356 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MALIK
S.3—Proposal—Acceptance or rejection—Principles—CommuniÂcation of proposals and acceptance of proposals are to be deemed by an act or omission of party proposing or accepting by which he intends to communicate such proposal or acceptance—Mere acceptance without communicating the same cannot be binding.
2008 MLD 577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MALIK
S.3—Proposal—Acceptance or rejection—Principles—CommuniÂcation of proposals and acceptance of proposals are to be deemed by an act or omission of party proposing or accepting by which he intends to communicate such proposal or acceptance—Mere acceptance without communicating the same cannot be binding.
2007 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman VS Raja MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN
—-Art. 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 3(c)—Jurisdiction of Ombudsman—Scope and object—Maladministration—Rescission of contract—Obligation of Wafaqi Mohtasib was to undertake investigation into an allegation of maladministration on the part
2003 MLD 646 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PETROSIN ENGINEERS AND CONTACTORS P.T.E. LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 2(a)(b)(e)(h), 3 & 10—Valid contract– -Making of bid simply would amount to making of an offer and unless it was accepted and communicated, it would not mature into a valid contract—No legal right would be acquired by a bidder by simply makin
2002 CLD 218 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AL-HUDA. HOTELS AND TOURISM -CO. VS PAKTEL LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(h), 3 & 10—Concluded contract —Determination—Test–Question whether the parties had reached a concluded contract or not, is a question of fact to be deduced from the correspondence and other documentary or oral evidence—True test for dec
1996 CLC 118 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN STEEL PRODUCTS VS INDUS STEEL PIPES LIMITED
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 3 & 7—Communication and revocation of proposal—Acceptance of proposal after its revocation—Effect—Deposit of earnest money by plaintiff before concluded and binding contract—Absence of concluded/binding contract—Result—Entitlement of plaintiff to claim earnest money–Communication of proposal/offer and intimation of its acceptance in unequivocal terms alone would create contract—In absence of absolute and unqualified acceptance of proposal/offer there was no contract—Acceptance of defendant to the offer of plaintiff was formally made after receiving revocation from plaintiff, therefore, no concluded and binding contract between parties had come into existence—Concluded and binding contract having not come into existence, defendant was not entitled for forfeiture of earnest money deposited by plaintiff—Plaintiff was entitled to withdraw his offer/proposal before same was accepted by defendant—Plaintiff was entitled to receive back earnest money deposited by him with defendant—Defendant had deposited amount of earnest money with Nazir of High Court in compliance of Court’s order—Plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the same alongwith profit if any.
1985 CLC 1457 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. VS BAHADUR KHAN
—Ss. 3 & 72–Contract–Damages–Proof–Onus on plaintiff to produce best evidence to prove damages otherwise every presumption would be made against him.–[Damages].
1983 CLC 828 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB VS ABDUL KARIM
Ss. 3 & 10-Contract-Acceptance-Communications referred not equivalent to acceptance-No reliance in absence of written communication, held, can be placed on oral testimony-Plaintiff failing to establish contract for sale-Judgment and decree of trial Court holding that there existed a binding contract between parties set aside.
1979 CLC 546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHALIMAR (PAKISTAN) LTD., LYALLPUR (FAISALABAD) VS PAKISTAN
3-Contract-Offer and acceptance-Orders for supply of goods issued after completion of tender by acceptance of offer of petitioner- Supply order, held, cannot be deemed to be either an offer or acceptance.-[Contract].
1968 PLD 1419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AZEEM SHAD VS MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MULTAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 3-Acceptance of tender without communication of such acceptance-Cannot be binding on invitor-Communication cannot be deemed where acceptance not communicated due to negligence of promisee, his employee or agent.
1967 PLD 204 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOHSIN A. REHMAN VS MESSRS PREMIER INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —– Ss. 3 & 31-Insurance-Life-insurance-Contents of proposal form, and declaration made before medical examiner, becoming untrue by date proposal accepted-Insurance Company accepting proposal and issuing policy on condition that person insured had riot in mean time suffered any injury or illness-Insured, sustaining injury in accident prior to acceptance-Fact, however, not disclosed to Company and insured dying soon thereafter Failure to disclose, held, absolved Company from all liability under policy.