Skip to content


Alfred Schonlank and anr. Vs. A. Muthunayana Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ57
AppellantAlfred Schonlank and anr.
RespondentA. Muthunayana Chetti
Excerpt:
- - this is indeed conceded by the learned counsel, but it is urged by him that upon the finding of the chief judge, there was consideration for the promise, but the learned judges, who made the reference to the high court, distinctly find that there was no consideration, and differ from the opinion of the chief judge......from the opinion of the chief judge.2. in the absence of any reference on the question of consideration, we must accept the fact as found by the bench, and answer the question referred to in the affirmative.
Judgment:

1. The question referred to the High Court is, 'was the defendant justified in revoking his proposal to sell indigo to the plaintiff before the expiry of the time which the defendant without consideration allowed to the plaintiffs, to express their acceptance or refusal?' Both on principle and authority it is clear that in the absence of consideration for the promise to keep the offer open for a time, the promise is a mere nudum pactum. This is indeed conceded by the learned Counsel, but it is urged by him that upon the finding of the Chief Judge, there was consideration for the promise, but the learned judges, who made the reference to the High Court, distinctly find that there was no consideration, and differ from the opinion of the Chief Judge.

2. In the absence of any reference on the question of consideration, we must accept the fact as found by the Bench, and answer the question referred to in the affirmative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //