Zachary v. Biharamulo District Council Cv. App. 3-M-70; 24/8/70; Mnzavas Ag. J.
The parties entered into a written contract that the appellant, in consideration of a sum of Shs. 4050/-, was to prepare and supply to the respondent office furniture made of mninga timber. The respondent repudiated the contract because the furniture delivered was made of mvule and not mninga timber. The appellant did not deny that the had made the furniture out of mvule timber, but he claimed that the parties had rescinded their written contract by substituting for it an oral one by which the furniture was to be made of mvule and therefore the respondent had no right to
Held:(1) “I fail to accept that there was such a variation of the original written contract the appellant had experiences difficult in obtaining mninga timber and wanted to utilize mvule timber instead one would have expected him to communicate his difficulty to the Council in writing. Indeed he wrote a letter to the Council on 30/10/68 asking for extension of time of the delivery of the furniture. He, in this letter, asked the time of delivery of the furniture to be extended to 11/11/68. This request was accepted by the Council in their telegram of 8/11/68. Nowhere in the letter of 30/10/68 does the appellant express his inability to obtain mninga timber apart from saying that he received the timber rather late from
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.