Section 7 : Acceptance must be absolute
2022 YLR 1323 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT VS Haji GHULAM MUSTAFA (deceased)
Ss. 7 & 10—Suit for declaration—Petitioners/public officials invited bids—Predecessor of the respondents/plaintiffs was accepted being the lowest bidder—Respondent submitted application before petitioners for revocation of the offer claiming that he had regretted on his loss and unworkable rates; that he had made the same bid under mental/physical stress, due to high bold pressure etc.; that petitioners refused to accept the said application despite the fact that the respondents refused to accept the letter of acceptance of the bid and had not signed the contract with the petitioners—Suit was concurrently decreed by the Courts below—Petitioner contended that soon after the respondent offered the lowest bid for the proposed supplies the same was accepted by the petitioner and dispatched the acceptance notices through registered mail; that after dispatch of the said notice, the respondent was under contractual liabilities and submission of application by the respondent was a futile exercise—Validity—Respondent had not signed the contract with the petitioners and in absence of any contract the contractual liabilities never occurred—No document of contract was available on the case file which was agreed/signed between the parties—Acceptance of offer was not complete—Notice did not constitute an absolute acceptance as required under S.7 of Contract Act, 1872—Contract had to be signed by the parties,, but before that the respondent revoked his offer by filing an application to the petitioner with the plea to exculpate the respondent from the contractual obligations and even forfeiting his earnest money—Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
2019 CLD 775 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS ZIA UL HAQ NOON
Ss. 9 & 22—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 7—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 119—Procedure of Banking Court—Suit for recovery—Guarantor of finance facility—Discharge of guarantee—Acceptance of such discharge by Financial Institution/Bank—Burden of proof as to particular fact—Scope—Plaintiff Bank impugned order of Banking Court whereby defendant, who was guarantor to a finance facility availed by a company, was discharged of his obligation for repayment of amounts, inter alia, on ground of transfer of shareholding of defendant company and provision of additional securities to the plaintiff Bank—Contention of guarantor / defendant, inter alia, was that correspondence and proposals exchanged between parties showed that plaintiff Bank had accepted discharge of guarantee of said defendant—Validity—Proposal for discharge of guarantee would become a binding contract if acceptance of such proposal was absolute and unqualified under S. 7 of the Contract Act, 1872—Nothing, in the present case, showed that plaintiff Bank ever conveyed an absolute and unqualified acceptance of letters addressed and proposals exchanged—Doctrine of acceptance by silence merely for reason that additional properties were provided and accepted by the plaintiff Bank was not tenable—Guarantor defendant, in the present case, failed to establish absolute and unqualified acceptance or even acceptance by way of conduct—Facts regarding acceptance of discharge of defendant’s guarantee on part of the plaintiff Bank and entitlement to discharge/release in lieu of any obligation, were relevant facts, which were required to be proved in terms of Art. 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Impugned order to the extent of guarantor defendant was set aside by the High Court—Appeal was allowed, accordingly.
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.
2014 CLC 718 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VS ICI PAKISTAN LTD.
Ss. 2(a), 7 & 10—“Offer”, “Acceptance” and “formation of a legally binding contract”—Scope—- Plaintiff had contended that the defendant increased prices of items supplied to it despite the fact that there was a binding agreement between the parties wherein it was stipulated that the defendant would not increase prices more than a certain percentage for three years—Contention of the defendant was that there was no binding agreement between the parties and there existed only an understanding—Held, that perusal of letter written by plaintiff to defendant showed that the same was an offer and a subsequent letter which was written by the defendant was an “acceptance” letter, which created a binding contract between the parties—Defendant had not only accepted the offer but had also performed the conditions of the proposal by not increasing rates for two years, which established, that a valid contract had been concluded between the parties—Offer made by the plaintiff was accepted by defendant in absolute terms and also the benefit of the contract was extended to the plaintiff for a period of two years which itself showed that a valid contract in terms of section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 had been executed between the parties—No illegality existed in the impugned order—Revision was dismissed.
2013 PLC(CS) 465 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANJUMAN FALAH-E-BAHBOOD VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
7—Offer converting into promise—Principle—For an acceptance to convert an offer into promise (i.e. a legally binding contract), under S.7 of Contract Act, 1872, it must be “absolute and unqualified”—Acceptance that does not come up to such standard is not an acceptance in the eyes of law and such “acceptance” cannot convert offer into a promise i.e. a contract.
2011 YLR 2825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TREAT CORPORATION LTD. VS ELMAC LTD.
S.7—Conversion of proposal into a contract must be absolute and unqualified in terms of S. 7 of Contract Act, 1882.
2011 YLR 2825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TREAT CORPORATION LTD. VS ELMAC LTD.
Ss. 7 & 10—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 21—Agreement not enforceable—Unconcluded contract—Memorandum of understanding—Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell of suit property—Defendant claimed that the agreement was not a concluded contract as performance of the same was subject to grant of certain permissions from the authorities—Validity—Specific performance of a document could not be granted where parties had intended that it was not to be considered as concluded contract until it had been confirmed by third party—Agreement in question was not a concluded agreement and was an understanding only, which was not enforceable in law, as both the parties had failed to obtain requisite permissions enabling them to enter into a concluded agreement—Plaintiff failed to establish that concluded agreement capable of enforcement in law was entered into between the parties—Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2006 PLD 523 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD MATLOOB VS State
—Ss. 7 & 10—Converting proposal into contract—Principles—In order to convert a proposal with binding contract, acceptance of proposal must be absolute and unqualified—Existence of a consensus ad idem with regard to all fundamental terms of the c
2003 CLC 991 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN VS Sheikh NAWAB DIN & SONS
——–S.7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.2— Suit for recovery of amount—Acceptance of proposal—Proof of acceptance—Contract earlier executed between the parties for supply of goods having been completed by plaintiffs firm, defendan
2002 YLR 1345 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN
—Ss.2, 7 & 8—Civil Procedure code (V of 1908), S. 115—Public auction—Revocation of bid—Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below—Respondent offered the highest bid for purchase of plot being sold by the petitioners through public auction
2002 CLD 218 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AL-HUDA. HOTELS AND TOURISM -CO. VS PAKTEL LIMITED
Contract Act 1872 —-S.7—Acceptance of proposal—Converting proposal into contract—Principle—In order to convert a proposal into a contract, the acceptance to the proposal must be absolute and unqualified—Consensus ad idem between the parties with regard to all the terms of the contract must be shown to exist—Qualified acceptance of proposal or acceptance of proposal with a variation is no acceptance.
1996 CLC 118 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN STEEL PRODUCTS VS INDUS STEEL PIPES LIMITED
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.
1982 PLD 76 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHALSONS FISHERIES LTD. VS LOHMANN & CO
S, 7-Acceptance of proposal-Consensus ad idem must exist between parties with regard to all terms of contract-Qualified acceptance of proposal or acceptance with variation-Held, does not bring into existence a binding contract between parties.
1982 CLC 2495 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Section 7 Proposal, acceptance of Acceptance of proposal containing material variation of terms of offer No agreement, held, constituted.
1975 PLD 193 SUPREME-COURT
KARACHI GAS CO.LTD VS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD
Contract Act 1872 –Ss. 7, 8, 9, 63 & 72-Implied agreement-Contract between Gas Company (appellant-defendants) and consumers (respondents-plaintiffs) providing for upward revision of price of gas in case of rise in price of furnace oil beyond certain limit-Defendant subsequently modifying clause of agreement empowering them to discontinue supply in case of price of furnace oil rising beyond given figure and agreeing that “should the price of oil reach the quoted figure . . . . this would naturally be subject to negotiations”-Rise in price of furnace oil over-reaching prescribed limit, defendants notifying plaintiffs of their intent to increase price of gas-Plaintiffs paying defendants consumers bilk without protest at increased rates for almost two years and also getting supply of gas extended to other premises but making protest against increased rates two years after wards Held : Doctrine of acceptance by silence applied to case-Plaintiffs accepted increased rates by their conduct before commencement of supply of gas, dispensed with requirement of negotiations, and could not retract from such position.-[ Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, J. (contra) 1.
1965 PLD 202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS AZIZ QURESHI
Contract Act 1872 S. 7-Acceptance of proposal must be absolute and certain-Acceptance with material variation-No acceptance-Whether acceptance with variation amounts to counter-proposal-Depends on facts and circumstances of each case-Mere addition of something by way of explanation or elucidation of particular term-Not counter-proposal-Prospective buyer in accepting offer of sale making statement: “We shall buy from stocks with no manufacturing defects”-Statement, held, in circumstance, not counter proposal.
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.
1958 PLD 278 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL AZIZ VS THE RENT CONTROLLER AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S. 7-Counter offer is not acceptance of original offer.