Summary
The bottler failed to prove that the respondent’s alleged contractual breach caused its anticipated-profit losses. Unilateral loan projections did not establish a real profit opportunity, its own financial and operational failures predominated, and reasonable mitigation was absent. Its conduct also accepted the replacement supply arrangement; dismissal of the damages suit was upheld.
Issues
- Whether anticipated profits and plant costs were recoverable on the evidence and causation shown.
- Whether conduct established acceptance or waiver concerning the changed concentrate supplier.
Provisions considered
- Section 73 and its Explanation, Indian Contract Act, 1872Loss required a causal connection to breach and proof beyond speculative profitability; reasonable available mitigation was relevant. (¶ 24–31)
- Sections 8, 62 and 63, Indian Contract Act, 1872The Court considered acceptance/novation by conduct and voluntary waiver through continued dealings under the new supply arrangement. (¶ 20–23)
Held
- The loan application’s projections were assumptions, not proven profitable performance. The claimant’s acknowledgment of years of expected losses, inadequate finance, manpower and infrastructure defeated proof that breach was a substantial cause of lost profits. (¶¶ 13–17, 24–26, 31)
- Continued ordering from the nominated supplier for nearly a year, including after correspondence objecting to the arrangement, supported waiver and acquiescence. The claimed compulsion had no evidentiary basis. (¶ 20–23)
- The claimant did not reasonably pursue available concentrate supply, alternative use or timely sale of its plant. Reliance expenditure could not place it above the position proper performance would have produced or compensate its own business failures. (¶ 27–31)
Result
Appeal dismissed; appellate dismissal of the damages suit upheld.