Section 5 : Revocation of proposals and acceptances
2016 YLR 100 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AYUB VS Miss. AMBREEN NAZ
12—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 102, 103 & 117—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 5—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Oral agreement— Scope— Proposal and acceptance—Plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract and he performed the same within stipulated time—Both the parties had entered into a valid contract—Written agreement could not be defeated by an oral agreement—Defendant, in the present case, had failed to prove the factum of oral agreement, and was estopped to allege and claim anything orally contrary to written commitments—Defendant had breached the agreement—Effect—Validly concluded agreement could not be revoked—Section 5 of Contract Act, 1872 barred revocation of proposals and acceptances once its communication was completed—Agreement had been concluded and offer of sale of property was accepted by the plaintiff by performing the condition of payment of 10% of sale consideration in advance—Receipt of advance payment by the defendant had confirmed that offer of sale of suit property was accepted by the plaintiff much before legal notice—Said acceptance was fully communicated to the defendant—Communication of proposal by the defendant and its acceptance was completed when advance/token amount of sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and defendant issued receipt of part payment in writing—Communication of both proposal and its acceptance had been completed by either parties to each other prior to revocation through notice—Neither there was any occasion to revoke the offer nor notice after the completion of communication could be treated as revocation—Impugned agreement was capable of specific performance and plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed—Defendant was directed to execute sale deed within a specified period and plaintiff be put in possession of suit property—Nazir of the court should execute sale deed in case of failure of defendant to execute the same in favour of plaintiff—Suit of plaintiff was decreed in circumstances.
2016 YLR 100 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AYUB VS Miss. AMBREEN NAZ
5—Revocation of proposal and acceptance—Scope—Section 5 of Contract Act, 1872 barred revocation of proposals and acceptances once its communication was completed.
2012 SCMR 1222 SUPREME-COURT
STATE OF HARYANA VS MALIK TRADERS
S.5—Revocation of offer before acceptance—Scope—Agreement to keep the offer open for a specific period of time—Penalty for revoking/withdrawing the offer before the end of the specific period of time—Effect—Right to withdraw an offer before its acceptance could not nullify the agreement to suffer any penalty for the withdrawal of the offer against the terms of the agreement.
2012 SCMR 1222 SUPREME-COURT
STATE OF HARYANA VS MALIK TRADERS
S.5—Revocation of offer before acceptance—Scope—Tender—Right to forfeit bid security—Scope—Bid (offer) made for tender with deposit of bid security—Validity period of bid—Condition that bid security would be forfeited if bid withdrawn (revoked) during its validity period—Withdrawal of bid within its validity period when it had not been accepted—Bid security could be forfeited, in circumstances—Provincial authorities (appellant), in the present case, invited tenders from interested persons for appointment as agent for collection of toll at a bridge—‘M’ (respondent) was one of the bidders and under the terms and conditions of the bid, deposited Rs. 2 million as bid security—As per terms and conditions of the bid, ‘M’ agreed to keep the bid/ offer open for acceptance for up to 90 days; agreed that the bid security would be forfeited should ‘M’ withdraw or modify its bid during the validity period of 90 days, and also agreed that ‘M’ would be bound by the communication of acceptance of the bid dispatched within the period of 90 days—ÂLetter of acceptance was issued to ‘M’, which letter stated that security amount and first instalment had to be deposited within 21 days of the receipt of the acceptance letter, but ‘M’ failed to do the same—Provincial authorities cancelled and withdrew the letter of acceptance issued to ‘M’ and forfeited its bid security of Rs. 2 million—‘M’ filed constitutional petition before the High Court with the contention that before receipt of letter of acceptance, it had sent a letter to the Provincial authorities informing them that ‘M’ was not interested in the work, therefore, the amount of bid security should be refunded—Constitutional petition was allowed by the High Court, letter of acceptance issued by the Provincial authorities was quashed and it was directed to refund the bid security amount of Rs. 2 million to ‘M’—Validity—Although ‘M’ had sent its letter withdrawing the bid (offer) before receipt of the acceptance letter, but ‘M’ had agreed to keep the bid open for acceptance for up to 90 days—‘M’ had also agreed that it would be bound by the communication of acceptance of the bid dispatched within the said period of 90 days, therefore, ‘M’ could not have withdrawn the bid before the expiry of the period of 90 days—Admittedly the acceptance of ‘M’ bid was communicated to it within the period of 90 days, therefore, ‘M’ was bound by the said acceptance of the bid, despite its withdrawal—‘M’ had also agreed that the full value of the bid security would be forfeited, should it withdraw or modify its bid/offer, and since ‘M’ withdrew its bid/offer in violation of the agreement, the full value of the bid security was liable to be forfeited—Although under the Contract Act, 1872, a proposal/offer could be revoked at any time before its acceptance was complete as against the proposer/offeror, but ‘M’ in the present case was bound by the agreement to keep the bid/offer open for acceptance for up to 90 days, and he was liable to suffer the consequences if he did not do the same—Under the cover of S.5 of the Contract Act, 1872, ‘M’ could not escape from the obligations and liabilities of the agreement—High Court was not justified in quashing the acceptance letter of the Provincial authorities and directing them to refund the bid security to ‘M’—Appeal was allowed and impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
2010 PLD 295 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS Dr. QADIR ALI KHAN
S5—Fixing of time as essence of contract—Principle—Where there is failure on the part of buyer to complete transaction and time is also not made essence of contract then it is for the seller to make time essence of contract by fixing reasonable time for performance of contract, whereafter if buyer fails to complete the transaction, the contract comes to an end.
2009 YLR 1165 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. KHADIJA DAWOOD VS 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (KARACHI) EAST
S.15(2)(ii)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), 5S.196—Ejectment application—Maintainability—Counsel for tenant had challenged maintainability of ejectment application contending that same was filed by the Bank, but was not supported with two power of attorneys as required and that power of attorney of signatory itself had shown that he could act only in association with another attorney and not in his single capacity—Ejectment application before the Rent Controller was filed by the Bank with signatories of two persons while one of them had verified the same—Subsequently another person who appeared as an attorney and witness for the Bank, was cross-examined and he admitted that there was no resolution of Bank while the attorney was effective with the association of another attorney as two attorneys had to act jointly—Case remained pending for the last 12 years, but no objection was raised by the Bank towards maintainability of case by its officers/attorneys; in such a situation even if there was any flaw in the presentation of power of attorney at the relevant time, then benefit of S.196 of the Contract Act, 1872 could also be given; which had provided that the person on whose behalf an agent or attorney had acted, then irrespective of the defect in the power, the principal could ratify the act of attorney or agent.
2005 YLR 1443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Babu JAVED AHMAD, TEHSIL NAZIM VS ABDUL HAFEEZ
–Ss. 5 & 188—Auction—Bid made at an auction is in the nature of an offer which does not mature into contract at all till its acceptance—Auctioneer acts as an agent of the seller and if he has authority to accept the bid, concluded contract comes in
2002 MLD 1063 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ASHIQ HUSSAIN & SONS VS CANTONMENT BOARD, SARGODHA
Contract Act 1872 —-S.5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Rejection of offer—Petitioner was “A” Class Contractor and was holding licence from Engineering Council, but his offer for construction work despite being lowest was rejected and instead higher offer of the opposing contractor was accepted—Petitioner was not only willing to perform contract at lowest rates, but also undertook to deposit ten per cent. of actual amount of contract as security to show bona fides—Petitioner had further undertaken that in case his work not found to be according to specification; his security could be confiscated, and other proper action could be taken against him—Petitioner had unblemished record and the Authority could not point out any complaint against him—High Court accepting Constitutional petition directed the. Authority to give contract to the petitioner accordingly.
1988 CLC 2147 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SALIM-UD-DIN VS PAK WHEAT PRODUCTS LTD
–Ss 178, 179, 180, 183 & 202–Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 5 & 63–Breaches committed by purchaser of property of company under liquidation, both with regard to furnishing of Bank guarantee and payment of instalments within the stipulated period, held,
1983 CLC 1762 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL DISINFECTANT COMPANY VS NATIONAL DETERGENTS LTD
XXXIX, r. 4 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 5 3t 6 and Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115-Stay of pending suit-Direction to file monthly statements of account during such stay Order of stay of pending suit for infringement of trade mark not incorporating applicants’ offer to file monthly statements of account in Court-Respondents praying inter alia for issuance of direction to applicants to file monthly statements of income-Held, such direction could be given while ordering stay of pending suit for infringement of trade mark-field further, applicants trying to take advantage of omission to incorporate such direction in stay order and they cannot be permitted to resile from their own offer.
1959 PLD 658 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI VS MESSRS-MUHAMMAD BAKHSH & SONS
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 5 & 7-Proposal-Revocable before completion of communication of its acceptance–Acceptance of proposal-Absolute and unqualified-Revocation of proposal and communication of acceptance-Controllable by terms of agreement.