Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli The bus was to go to St...........

Legal Reasoning Others

Section 23 in the Indian Contract Act, 1872

23. What consideration and objects are lawful, and what not.—The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— —The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless—" it is forbidden by law;¹⁴ or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. Illustrations

(a) A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here, B’s promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for A’s promise to sell the house and A’s promise to sell the house is the consideration for B’s promise to pay the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations. (a) A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here, B’s promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for A’s promise to sell the house and A’s promise to sell the house is the consideration for B’s promise to pay the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations."

Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it." Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.—When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. —When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract."

Explanation.—in estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account

Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli. However, the driver mistakenly took a wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 21/2 miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 21/2 miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed Rs. 5000 as damages for inconvenience caused in having to walk and Rs. 6500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching cold during the night.

Both the amounts are liable to be paid because Sunita and Sushmita suffered loss for no fault of theirs.

The bus company is liable to pay both the amounts claimed because the loss was suffered on account of the fault of the bus company and the inconvenience suffered and illness arose was in the normal course of things from breach of contract.

The compensation for inconvenience suffered by being forced to walk at night is liable to be paid by the bus company. However, no compensation for Sushmita's illness because this was not expected on account of breach of contract.

The bus company is not liable to pay any amount, because it was the driver's fault.