M Ltd. contract with Shanti Traders to make and deliver certain machinery to them by 30th June 2023 for ` 11.50 lakhs. Due to labour strike, M Ltd. could not manufacture and deliver the machinery to Shanti Traders. Later, Shanti Traders procured the machinery from another manufacturer for ` 12.75 lakhs. Due to this, Shanti Traders was also prevented from performing a contract which it had made with Zenith Traders at the time of their contract with M Ltd. and were compelled to pay compensation for breach of contract. Advise Shanti Traders the amount of compensation which it can claim from M Ltd., referring to the legal provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. OR M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. contracted with M/s Ruchi Traders to make and deliver certain machinery by 31st July for ` 15 Lakhs. There was a labour strike in the factory of M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. and it could not manufacture and deliver the machinery to M/s Ruchi Traders. Afterwards, M/s Ruchi Traders had to purchase the machinery from another manufacturer for ` 18 Lakhs. M/s Ruchi Traders was also prevented from performing a contract which was made with M/s Shiksha Technologies at the time of its contract with M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. and were compelled to pay compensation of ` 2 Lakhs to M/s Shiksha Technologies. M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. was very well informed by M/s Ruchi Traders about its contract with M/s Shiksha Technologies. M/s Ruchi Traders sued M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co for recovery of compensation of ` 3 Lakhs (i.e. ` 18 Lakhs – ` 15 Lakhs) plus ` 2 Lakhs given to M/s Shiksha Technologies. Advise under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for consequences of breach of contract. According to 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 there by 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 given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. It is further provided in the explanation to the section that in estimating the loss or damage 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. Applying the above principle of law to the given case, M Ltd. is obliged to compensate for the loss of ` 1.25 lakh (i.e. ` 12.75 minus ` 11.50 = ` 1.25 lakh) which had naturally arisen due to default in performing the contract by the specified date. Regarding the amount of compensation which Shanti Traders were compelled to make to Zenith Traders, it depends upon the fact whether M Ltd., knew about the contract of Shanti Traders for supply of the contracted machinery to Zenith Traders on the specified date. If so, M Ltd is also obliged to reimburse the compensation which Shanti Traders had to pay to Zenith Traders for breach of contract. Otherwise, M Ltd is not liable. OR In the instant case, M/s Ruchi Traders sued M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. for recovery of compensation of ` 3 Lakhs (i.e. ` 18 Lakhs – ` 15 Lakhs) plus ` 2 Lakhs given to M/s Shiksha Technologies. As M/s Ruchi Traders informed M/s Janta Machine Tools & Co. about its contract with M/s Shiksha Technologies at the time of making the contract. Hence, ` 2 Lakhs is a special damage which can be recovered with ordinary damages of ` 3 Lakhs, which is the loss, caused to it.