BENCH: P Dixit, J
FACTS:
- An offer to him on phone for the sale of 5 wagons of Makka by the Petitioner firm carrying on its business at Ramganj Mandi, Rajasthan
- The goods were to be delivered at Asarwa
- However, the Respondent failed to deliver the said Makka to the plaintiff-firm
- A suit was brought for breach of the contract
ISSUE:
- Whether the Court of the Civil Judge Ratlam, had jurisdiction to try a suit instituted for damages for breach of a contract.
PETITIONER’s CONTENTIONS:
- That the Ratlam Court had jurisdiction as the contract was concluded in Ratlam and the payment in respect of the goods was also to be made in Ratlam
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTIONS:
- That the Ratlam Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the offer was made by the plaintiff on phone
- That the offer was accepted in Ramganj and the payment was also to be made in Ramganj
JUDGMENT:
The Court held that the Contracts over the telephone are treated similar in principle to those contracted by the parties in the physical presence of one other. An oral offer is made and an oral acceptance is to be completed in both cases. It is essential for the acceptance to be audible, heard and understood by the offeror. There is no contract if during the conversation the telephone lines are dead and the offeror does not hear the offeree’s word of acceptance. The contract is complete if the whole conversation is repeated and the offeror hears and understands the words of acceptance. The Court dismissed the petition as it was held that the Ratlam Court had the jurisdiction.
