Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Performance of Contracts

Sunil Traders contracts to supply 200 bags of rice to Kapoor Stores at its godown. Kapoor Stores keeps the godown locked all day and no one is available to receive the goods, so delivery is not made. Sunil Traders had the goods ready. Which statement is correct?

Sunil Traders is excused to the extent its failure to deliver was caused by Kapoor Stores keeping the godown locked and unattended. Section 67 excuses a promisor whose non-performance results from the promisee's neglect to give reasonable facilities.

  1. ASunil Traders is excused to the extent non-performance was caused by Kapoor Stores' neglect to afford facilitiesCorrect
  2. BSunil Traders is in breach because delivery was not completed
  3. CThe contract stands discharged automatically for both parties
  4. DKapoor Stores may sue Sunil Traders as non-performance is entirely the seller's concern

Explanation

Locking the godown and providing no one to receive goods is a neglect to afford reasonable facilities. Under Section 67 the promisor is excused for non-performance caused thereby. Saying the seller is in breach ignores that the cause was the promisee's own conduct.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Performance of Contracts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Performance of ContractsFree diagnostic mock

More Performance of Contracts questions