Indian Contract Act: Compensation for Breach and Rescission

1. Section 74—Compensation for breach of Contract where penalty stipulated for

Remedies for Breach of Contract: The law provides three main remedies for breach of contract:
Specific performance and injunctions, handled under the Specific Relief Act.
Damages, covered by Section 73.
Damages Under Section 73:
Compensation can be claimed for:
Losses that naturally arise from the breach.
Losses that were foreseeable by both parties at the time of making the contract.
Compensation is not allowed for remote or indirect losses.
Causation and Remoteness:
Causation requires a direct link between the breach and the loss.
The remoteness principle limits compensation to losses that were foreseeable and not too distant from the breach.
Measure of Damages:
Damages seek to protect:
Expectation interest: put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
Reliance interest: cover losses incurred by relying on the contract.
Restitution interest: prevent the breaching party from benefiting at the expense of the injured party.
Non-Pecuniary Loss: Generally, non-pecuniary losses like mental distress are not covered, though exceptions might apply in certain circumstances.
Exclusion Clauses: Parties can contractually limit or exclude liability for damages, but such clauses are interpreted narrowly by the courts.
Judicial Interpretation: The courts have interpreted Section 73 with reference to common law principles, such as those established in Hadley v Baxendale, which introduced the rules of remoteness.
General Measure of Damages: Contracts and Market Price Availability
Coal Contract without Ready Market: In cases where a ready market for the contracted goods does not exist, the court may use sub-contract rates as a reference for calculating damages. For example, a defendant failed to deliver 1,000 tons of coal to the plaintiff during a period without a ready market. The plaintiff’s damages were determined based on the rates specified in sub-contracts made by the plaintiff for coal sales.
Ship Hire Contract and Alternate Opportunities: In B’s Ship Hire to A (illustration), A was able to secure another ship to convey the cargo when B’s ship failed to reach Bombay on time. A was entitled to claim the trouble and expenses incurred in arranging the alternative transport.
Actual Loss as a Basis for Damages
Late Delivery Impact: When goods are delivered late, but subsequently sold for an amount less than the original value but higher than the current market value, the seller is entitled to damages based on the actual loss suffered, not on theoretical loss (e.g., Rs 10 per ton in the given example).
Breach of Purchase Contracts
Buyer’s Refusal to Accept Goods: Where A contracted to buy rice from B, and later refused to accept it, B is entitled to compensation if he ends up selling the rice at a lower price than the contract price. If no specific date was given for delivery, damages are based on the difference between the contract price and the market price on the last day the buyer refuses to take delivery.
Sale of Ship: In B’s Ship Sale Contract to A where A breaks the contract, A must pay B compensation for the difference between the contracted sale price and the new market price that B can obtain for the ship.
Late Delivery Leading to Reduced Market Price
In A’s Boat Contract to Transport Jute to Mirzapur, A’s delayed shipment caused a loss to B because the market price of jute fell by the time the goods arrived. Compensation was awarded based on the price difference between the projected value at timely delivery and the actual market value upon delayed arrival.
Carriage by Sea or Land: Damages for late delivery are calculated consistently whether the carriage is by sea or by land, provided that the circumstances allow reasonable calculation of market fluctuations in both cases (Hadley v. Baxendale).
Defective Workmanship and Repairs
House Repairs by A for B: Where A failed to repair the house according to the contract with B, B is entitled to recover the cost of making the repairs conform to the contract.
Freight Contracts: Rise in Market Prices
A’s Contract to Lease Ship to B: When freight prices rise after a lease contract is agreed upon, and A breaches the contract, B is entitled to the difference between the contract price and the new market hire price.
Subsequent Refusal to Receive Goods
Refusal to Accept Iron from A: In cases where B refuses to receive the iron contracted for purchase from A, B is liable to pay compensation equal to the difference between the contract price and the current market price of iron.
Delivery by Installments and Anticipatory Breach: For goods to be delivered in installments, such as iron by the end of September, October, and November, the damages are calculated based on the difference between the market price and contract price at each installment due date.
Special Damages for Delay in Delivery of Specific Goods
In Hadley v Baxendale, if the mill owner had informed the carrier of the specific requirement of the machinery, the carrier would have been liable for profits lost due to the delay. In Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd, the plaintiffs successfully claimed lost profits for the delay in delivering a boiler because the defendants were aware of the boiler’s immediate use.
Breach of Delivery Affecting Resale Contracts
In Jaques v Millar, damages were recoverable when an intended lessee knew about the specific trade needs and delayed delivery. Likewise, C failing to deliver iron to A, which A needed for fulfilling another contract, made C liable for the loss of profit A would have earned from the contract.
Notice of Resale and Chain of Contracts
If A informs C that iron is being purchased for the purpose of fulfilling a contract with B, and C fails to deliver, C must compensate for the profit loss. In Jaques v Millar, similar principles applied when a chain of sales depended upon compliance by a party at the start of the chain.
Warranty Breach: Consequential Damages
In A sells goods to B with a warranty, and B resells them, if the goods are defective, A must reimburse B for any compensation paid to the subsequent buyer. The extent of damages depends on the timing and severity of the breach, and losses are calculated as of the date of the breach.
Collateral Damages and Delay in Payment of Money
Delay in Payment by A to B: The law generally does not allow claims for collateral damages due to delay in the receipt of money, focusing only on the interest or other direct financial elements (principal amount and interest). Indirect damages, such as the total ruin of B due to A‘s non-payment, are typically not recoverable.
Special Cases of Failed Delivery or Rejection of Goods
Market Prices and Resale Contracts: If A contracts to sell saltpetre to B, and B subsequently arranges to resell it to C, but A fails to deliver, B‘s damages are based on the difference between the contract price and the market value on the contract date, not on potential profits from the resale to C.
Breach Causing Business Interruption: In the example of A contracting to sell cotton to B, and B being forced to close his mill due to non-delivery, A is not responsible for the losses caused by B’s mill closure, as there was no prior notice of such an impact.
Loss of Profits and Notice of Special Circumstances
Seasonal Business Failure: If A delivers cloth to B too late for seasonal use, B may claim compensation for the reduced market value but not for expected profits lost or preparations made. Similarly, a tailor’s delivery of equipment late for a festival, without the carrier’s knowledge of its purpose, results in no liability for lost profits.
Chain of Contractual Obligations
In a chain of sales starting from A, leading to E who sold to F, and F successfully suing E, the original seller, A, was held liable for the damages through each layer of the transaction. This emphasizes the concept of liability traveling along the chain if conditions are not met at an earlier stage.
Failure to Construct in Timely Manner and Consequential Damages
A’s Contract to Build for B: In cases where A fails to construct a house for B on time, resulting in B incurring penalties and lost rental income, A must compensate B for all related costs, including loss of rent and penalties paid to third parties.
Illustration and Compensation for Damages:
In the example of A, a ship-owner contracting with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney, A’s ship does not sail on the first of January as promised. Consequently, B faces delays and expenses before taking another vessel, arriving late and losing a sum of money.

- A is liable to repay B the deposit with interest, expenses from B’s detention in Calcutta, and the difference in passage costs between the first and second ships.
- However, A is not liable for the consequential loss of the sum of money due to the late arrival in Sydney.
- Point of Law: Damages are limited to direct losses foreseeable under ordinary circumstances, not to indirect or consequential losses unless specifically communicated.

Non-Disclosure of Particular Purpose:
In another example, A contracts to sell B sulphuric acid free from arsenic. A is unaware of B‘s specific use of the acid (producing a kind of sugar for brewers). When the acid turns out to contain arsenic, the sugar becomes useless, and B suffers damage.

- B can recover only the price of the acid and the value of goods directly spoiled by the impure acid.
- Point of Law: If a particular purpose or use is not disclosed, only direct, proximate losses are recoverable, not further consequential damages (similar to the rule in Hadley v Baxendale).

Explanation to Section 73:
The Explanation discusses “means which existed of remedying the inconvenience,” which has been obscure in practice.

- Judicial Committee in Jamal v. Moolla Dawood Sons & Co.: It is a plaintiff’s duty to mitigate the loss after a breach. If he fails, any excess loss is due to his neglect. Loss should be calculated at the date of the breach.

Duty to Mitigate Loss:
Staniforth v. Lyall illustrates that the defendant is entitled to the benefit if the plaintiff could have mitigated damages at the date of breach.

- In anticipatory breach cases, the non-breaching party need not seek out alternative contracts.
  - Example: In Z v. A (In a Privy Council case), Z repudiated the contract for ginning cotton. A was not obligated to tender cotton to other mills to mitigate the loss. Damages were assessed on the estimated profit at the breach date.
Exception: If goods are custom-manufactured, and cannot be used elsewhere, mitigation may not be applicable.

Requirement of Reasonableness:
A non-breaching party can fulfil the contract obligations for himself but must do so reasonably, without oppressing the other party or incurring extravagant costs.

- It is also their duty to mitigate losses as much as possible.
- Test for Reasonableness: Consider what a prudent, uninsured person would do under similar circumstances.
- Example: Hiring a special train to save an hour when there is no urgency is not reasonable; the cost cannot be recovered as damages.

Contracts Relating to Immovable Property:
The rule in Hadley v. Baxendale does not apply to contracts involving immovable property in English law.

- In Bain v. Fothergill, the House of Lords held that a purchaser of real estate cannot recover damages for the loss of his bargain, only the deposit and expenses. If the vendor knew he had no title, the purchaser could sue for deceit, but not on the contract itself.
- Indian Context: The Bombay High Court initially assumed that Bain v. Fothergill applied in India, but Section 73 is general and includes damages for immovable property contracts.
- Cases such as Ranchhod v. Manmohandas (Bombay High Court) affirmed that the rule in Bain v. Fothergill does not apply in India, allowing for damages for loss of bargain in immovable property.
- Supreme Court also affirmed that Section 73 does not exclude contracts involving land. Where a vendor guarantees title, the purchaser may recover the value of the land at eviction, not just the purchase price.

Breach Date Rule:
Supreme Court has laid down the law that damages usually become due on the date of breach, allowing the injured party to take mitigation measures.

- Courts may deviate if it’s unreasonable to presume that the injured party was aware of the breach immediately.
- If a developer fails to deliver a flat, and the buyer lacks the means to buy a substitute, damages may not be assessed on the breach date.

Interest by Way of Damages:
Interest Act, 1839 allowed for interest in some cases.

- Bengal Nagpur Railway Case: The Privy Council ruled that the creditor cannot recover interest unless entitled by law.
- Exceptions: Courts awarded interest by way of damages where money was retained by fraud (e.g., Sandbach v. Foster) or wrongfully detained (Burridge v. Row).
- Interest Act, 1978: This Act replaces the earlier version and provides a general rule for awarding interest on overdue debts, aligning with the idea that interest represents the time-value of money.
- State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills: The Supreme Court held that when a contract provides for damages recoverable as arrears of land revenue, such damages, even if arising from a breach, fall within the scope of the contract and can be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act.

2. Section 74—Compensation for breach of Contract where penalty stipulated for

· Scope

Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with the measure of damages in two distinct categories of contractual breaches:

Contracts where a sum is named to be paid in case of a breach.
Contracts containing other stipulations by way of penalty.
The second category broadens the scope of Section 74, covering situations such as the forfeiture of earnest money, security deposits, and installments of hire. In contrast, under Section 73, actual loss or damage arising in the ordinary course of events must be proved. However, under Section 74, proof of actual loss or damage is not mandatory for awarding reasonable compensation. The words “whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby” indicate that damages can still be awarded where proving the actual loss is difficult, unlike Section 73.
Nonetheless, Section 74 does not entirely eliminate the need to prove that some loss or damage has occurred. A party must still demonstrate that some harm has occurred, even if actual loss or damage cannot be quantified. Courts can award reasonable compensation if the breach falls under Section 74, but this compensation cannot exceed the stipulated amount in the contract.
Section 73 lays down the principle of compensation in case of a breach, whereas Section 74 pertains to contracts specifying a penalty or a predetermined sum for breach. Both sections can operate in tandem within a contract—some breaches covered under liquidated damages (Section 74) and others, not covered by a penalty, falling under Section 73.

· Penalty and Liquidated Damages

Section 74 addresses scenarios where parties foresee a breach and specify an amount to be paid as compensation:

The sum specified may be a genuine estimate of actual loss likely to be incurred.
The sum could be less than the genuine estimate, indicating a limit on liability.
The sum may be higher than the estimated loss, acting as a deterrent for breach.
The specified amount can either be classified as “liquidated damages” or “penalty.” The first and second scenarios involve liquidated damages or reasonable compensation, while the third scenario indicates a penalty that could be relieved against under Section 74.
Section 74 tries to provide a straightforward solution, avoiding some of the complexities of English law, by stipulating reasonable compensation that does not exceed the named sum or penalty. A clause might be regarded as either a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of loss based on its construction and terms. In BSNL v. Reliance Communication, the Supreme Court laid down three relevant tests:
If the damage is difficult to assess, it strengthens the presumption that the clause is a genuine pre-estimate of damages.
The nature of the clause is determined by examining the contract’s clauses and circumstances at the time of execution.
The classification of the clause as “penalty” or “liquidated damages” is relevant but not conclusive.
The distinction between a penalty and reasonable pre-estimate has been maintained, despite the general provision that reasonable compensation must be awarded under Section 74. Consequently, a penalty clause cannot be considered illegal or unconscionable under Section 23, as reasonable compensation by the Court would mitigate any hardship from an unconscionable stipulation.
Stipulations for Interest

Section 74 frequently applies to stipulations concerning interest, which are divided into five categories:

Enhanced Interest on Default:
Stipulation for increased interest either from the date of the bond or from the date of default.
Interest at a higher rate from the date of the bond is always considered penal (e.g., A borrows ₹1,000 from B and gives a bond with an interest rate of 12%, stipulating 25% on default from the bond date).
Interest increase from the date of default may be penal based on its construction, which depends on its unconscionability or primary contractual intent.
Compound Interest:
A stipulation for compound interest at the same rate as simple interest is not considered a penalty.
However, compound interest at a rate higher than simple interest is considered penal (Sunder Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen).
Interest if Principal Not Paid:
Stipulations involving a single rate of interest, such as payment on default, are covered by the Indian Contract (Amendment) Act, 1899, under the definition of penalty.
Interest at Lower Rate if Paid Regularly:
If a bond provides for payment of interest at a higher rate in case of default, it is not a penalty if the debtor is entitled to a reduced rate by punctual payments.
High-Rate Interest from Bond Date:
A stipulation for interest at a high rate from the date of the bond may be treated as penal if the rate is exorbitant (as observed by the Calcutta High Court), although the Madras High Court has argued otherwise, citing the absence of an antecedent promise.

· Stipulations for Enhanced Rate of Interest

Increased Interest from Bond Date: Always considered penal; relief under Section 74 applies.
Increased Interest from Default Date: May or may not be penal, based on construction. Relief applies if deemed unconscionable.

· Stipulations for Compound Interest

Same Rate as Simple Interest: Not a penalty.
Higher Rate than Simple Interest: Considered a penalty and subject to relief (Sunder Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen).

· Stipulations for Interest

o Section 74 covers stipulations that provide for a specified interest rate if the principal is not paid on the due date, which may be considered a penalty if exorbitant.

o A clause offering a lower interest rate if paid regularly is not penal (e.g., interest at 24% reduced to 18% if paid punctually).

o Stipulations for exorbitant interest rates from the bond date are considered penal if there is no antecedent promise. This question has seen differing views by various High Courts:

Calcutta High Court: Exorbitant rates may be penal.
Madras High Court: Section 74 does not apply in such cases.
Patna High Court: Agrees with the Madras High Court.

The Usurious Loans Act, 1918, deals with exorbitant interest, empowering the Court to reduce rates if the interest is deemed excessive and the transaction unfair.

· Withdrawal of Concessional Payments

An agreement that allows a debtor to discharge a larger debt by paying a lesser amount or by installments within a specified time with a stipulation that the full debt shall be payable on default is not considered a penalty. It is viewed as a withdrawal of concession.

· Deposit on Agreement for Purchase of Immovable Property

Maula Bux v Union of India (UOI) (1970) 1 SCC 794: This case differentiates between earnest money and security deposits. Earnest money is paid by a purchaser as a stake in the transaction. It is treated as part payment upon completion of the contract and is forfeited if the contract fails due to the purchaser’s default or failure. In contrast, a security deposit guarantees the due performance of a contract, such as a contract to deliver goods, and is not regarded as earnest money. Forfeiture of earnest money, if reasonable, does not fall within Section 74 and is not considered a penalty.
Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das (1964) 1 SCR 515: In this case, the plaintiff (seller) received an amount from the defendant (purchaser), which consisted of Rs 1,000 as earnest money and Rs 24,000 as part of the sale price. The contract had a forfeiture clause for both the money paid and the property possession if the defendant failed to register the sale deed on time. The Supreme Court held that Rs 24,000 was not earnest money as it was specified to be “out of the sale price,” whereas the Rs 1,000 was forfeited as earnest money. Forfeiture of earnest money is valid, but forfeiture of a part payment of the sale price, without evidence that it was security for the performance of the contract, is considered a penalty, and Section 74 applies.

· Deposits Other than Earnest Money

Deposits, other than earnest money, are often made as security for the performance of a contract. If there is no forfeiture clause, the party in breach is liable only for damages and is entitled to a refund of the remaining deposit. If a forfeiture clause is present, the forfeiture will be subjected to judicial scrutiny to determine if it amounts to penalty under Section 74.
Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority (2015) 4 SCC 136: The Supreme Court held that forfeiture of earnest money is not allowed if the aggrieved party does not prove any actual loss or damage. In this case, the buyer backed out from an auction, but no actual loss was suffered by the DDA. Thus, forfeiture of earnest money was disallowed.

· Consent Decrees

In case of a consent decree, where a default by the defendant results in an obligation to pay an increased amount, it needs to be determined whether the increased liability is in the nature of a penalty. The test is as follows:
If the decree-holder gets more than the amount claimed in the suit due to the default clause, it is considered a penalty.
If the decree-holder receives only the amount that was the rightful claim in the suit, it is not a penalty.

· “Reasonable Compensation”

Section 74 allows courts discretion to determine damages but restricts compensation to a maximum stipulated in the contract. The term reasonable compensation implies considering the circumstances of each case and sometimes may involve estimation or “guesswork.”
Compensation awarded should align with the actual loss, and it must be ensured that it is not excessive. Courts can award compensation equal to the stipulated penalty provided it does not appear unreasonable.

· Onus of Proof to Prove Actual Damage

The burden of proving the extent of damage rests on the aggrieved party.
Maula Bux v UOI (1970): It was observed that while proof of actual loss is not required in every breach of contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to reasonable compensation even without such proof if the nature of the contract makes loss difficult to assess.
Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das (1964): The Supreme Court clarified that while proof of loss is dispensed with, reasonable compensation is still necessary. It cannot be awarded if no legal injury occurred from the breach.
ONGC v Saw Pipes (2003) 5 SCC 705: Emphasized that compensation named in a contract could be awarded without proof of actual loss if it was a genuine pre-estimate of potential loss. However, if the named compensation is in the nature of penalty, only reasonable compensation should be awarded, not exceeding the stipulated amount.

· Key Observations in Kailash Nath Associates (2015)

The Supreme Court provided a summary of the principles under Section 74:
Compensation can only be awarded up to the stipulated amount if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damages.
If the compensation is in the nature of a penalty, only reasonable compensation can be awarded, which cannot exceed the penalty.
Damage or loss is a sine qua non for applying Section 74.
The section applies whether the party is a plaintiff or defendant.
It applies to both sums paid and payable.
Proof of damage is required if it is possible to prove, otherwise the liquidated amount can be awarded as reasonable compensation.
Section 74 also applies to forfeiture of earnest money, except when the forfeiture occurs before the agreement under terms and conditions of a public auction.

· Exceptions under Section 74

Contracts involving performance of a public duty or acts involving public interest are exempt under Section 74 if the bond for performance is given under the provisions of law.

· Managing Agency Agreements

Where liquidated damages are specified in a contract, the right to claim an unascertained amount as damages is excluded. In Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spg & Mfg Co. Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 379, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase not less than to emphasize the minimum amount of compensation payable without court reduction.

3. Section 75—Party rightfully rescinding contract, entitled to compensation

· Right to Compensation upon Rescission

Principle: Under Section 75, a party who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled to compensation for any damage that has been sustained due to the non-fulfillment of the contract.
This entitlement to compensation applies regardless of whether the contract was completely or partially performed prior to rescission.

· Measure of Damages

Issue of Measure of Damages:
The measure of damages under Section 75 raises complexities since a rescinded contract may be either wholly to be executed or partly executed.
The words “through the non-fulfillment of the contract” suggest that damages for acts performed prior to rescission are generally precluded.
However, in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd v Datar Switchgear Ltd (2018) 3 SCC 133, the Supreme Court clarified the measure of damages.
The Supreme Court held that, once it is established that the innocent party was justified in terminating the contract, such party is entitled to claim damages for the entire contract, covering both the part already performed and the part the innocent party was prevented from performing.

· Effect of Exclusion Clauses on Rescission

Exclusion Clauses in Cases of Rescission:
When a contract is rightfully rescinded, any exclusion of liability clauses that protect the party in breach would cease to have effect. This has a significant impact on the rights of the innocent party, as they may claim damages without limitations imposed by these clauses.
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd v Datar Switchgear Ltd judgment relied upon the ruling of the House of Lords in Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967).
House of Lords Observation in Suisse Atlantique:

The House of Lords noted that a fundamental or repudiatory breach may render exclusion clauses inapplicable.

Specifically, if a fundamental breach produces a situation fundamentally different from what could have reasonably been contemplated by the parties, then any exclusion clause would not apply.

If the innocent party chooses to treat the breach as repudiation, bringing the contract to an end and suing for damages, the entire contract, including the exclusion clause, ceases to exist.

Therefore, exclusion clauses cannot prevent claims for losses that occur after the contract ceases, such as loss of profit that would have accrued if the contract had run its full term.

· Case Law References

Newbigging v Adam, (1886) 34 Ch D 582: Bowen LJ in Newbigging v Adam discussed principles of damages in situations involving rescission of contracts.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd v Datar Switchgear Ltd (2018) 3 SCC 133: The Supreme Court elaborated that the innocent party can claim damages for the entirety of the contract, emphasizing that both performed and unperformed parts are subject to compensation.
Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale: This case highlighted that in cases involving fundamental or repudiatory breach, exclusion clauses lose their applicability as the contract itself ceases to exist.