Skip to content


Carlisles, Nephews and Co. Vs. Hurmook Roy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal679
AppellantCarlisles, Nephews and Co.
RespondentHurmook Roy and anr.
Excerpt:
contract - construction of contract--printed form of contract--writing and printing--sale of goods to arrive. - .....used by the plaintiffs' firm, and were not intended to constitute any part of this particular contract. the argument, therefore, which was addressed to us upon those words entirely fails.2. we think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows:the first and fourth questions should be answered' in the affirmative. the second question of course, does not arise; and as to the third, we do not see that the nagri writing is at all inconsistent with the english contract.3. the defendants must pay the costs of this reference.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We think that the judgment of the Court below is correct. It is satisfactory to have seen the original contract, because it seems clear that the printed words in the margin 'now in course of landing, &c.;,' were merely the common form generally used by the plaintiffs' firm, and were not intended to constitute any part of this particular contract. The argument, therefore, which was addressed to us upon those words entirely fails.

2. We think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows:

The first and fourth questions should be answered' in the affirmative. The second question of course, does not arise; and as to the third, we do not see that the Nagri writing is at all inconsistent with the English contract.

3. The defendants must pay the costs of this reference.


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