1.“A” sold cistern oil to “B”.

For delivery of it, A had to fill oil into casks and filling into
casks and filling into casks, B have to them away. Some of the casks were filled in the
presence of B, but before filling remaining casks a fire broke out and entire volume of oil
got destroyed.
A. Who should bear the loss, A or B or Both?
Ans: In my opinion, I think “A” should bear the loss because In the case, even though “A” has
sold goods to “B”, it does not means that “B” will be liable for this destruction because in this
case selling of goods takes place not the delivery of goods. So, if the good will be completely
delivered to B, then there seems the transfer of owner ship. We know that ownership transfer is
the ultimate right of the person to his good.
Since, in this case, selling of goods takes place not the transfer of ownership. So, due to
complete undelivered of goods to “B”, there seems “A” still has ownership of goods with him.
So, because of this, A is completely liable for the loss.
B. If both should bear the loss, how should they bear it?
Ans: By analyzing the contract of sales, we find that A is completely liable for this loss
because the goods is still not delivered to B. But if both agree to bear the loss on mutual
agreement, the extent of loss that “B” is going to bear is quite small then the extent of “A”. It is
so because A had failed to deliver the goods to “B” completely. So there is no complete transfer
of goods. Therefore, the extent of loss bear by “B” is small than “A”.
2. Bhanubhakta school of Kathmandu is in need of English teacher and therefore, the
school calls, through advertisement application from the public. Pashupati, a resident
of pokhara comes to Kathmandu and applies for the post. The management committee
decided to approve this application for the post but that decision was not communicated
to Pashupati. One of the members of the management committee in his individual
capacity and without any authority informs the pashupati about the decision.
Subsequently, the management committee cancelled the decision and appointed another
teacher in his place. Ascertaining the fact, pashupati filled suit against the management
committee for the breach of contract and claim the compensation for Rs. 5,000.

A. Can communication made unauthorized by a member of committee of be valid?

Ans: Yes, the communication made by unauthorized by a member of committee is valid
because the members provide the information to the applicant Pashupati which he deserves to
get the information. Similarly, the member has flow the correct information which is meant to
be flow by the committee to the applicant Pashupati. So, because of this member it seems that
the committee has fulfilled his obligation but unfortunately the applicant of pashupati has
been cancelled by management committee.
B. Can the committee have the right to conceal the approval of pashupati’s application
on the ground that he is not formally communicated about his appointment?
Ans: No, the management committee has no right to conceal the approval of Pashupati’s
application on the ground that he is not formally communicated about his appointment.
It is against the principal of contract. However, the management committees need to forward the
result of pashupati within reasonable time so that he will not suffer. Here, in this case, we find
that the committee on his own intention had not provides any results to pashupati which may
cause the loss to pashupati. This shows the committee is diverted from their duty and
responsibility which shows the intention of breaching the contract. So, because of these the
management need not conceal application even though he is not selected. After all, it our rights
to know about the result and this should not be concealing. If someone does so, he will be
punishing legally.

3. Kathmandu Institute of technical science (KITS) calls tender for the supply of certain
health Appliance, which it may require from time to time. Mr . X submits the tender
application with quotation promising to go on supplying the appliance as and when KITS
requires. KITS accepts the tender of a Mr.X. But during the whole year period, it does
not make any order for the goods due to which X has to suffer a huge loss because of X
unnecessary capital blockage. Mr.X sues KITS claiming compensation for loss caused to
him because of no order being placed by the latter. Besides, the above case on the basis
rules regarding standing contract.

A. Should KITS be made liable to compensate Mr.X as per his claim?

Ans: In general, standing contract is quite different then other contract because in general
contract we find that time, place and legal obligation between the contracting parties matter
much. So, if any one violates this general contract, they should claim compensation to
suffering party. However, in case of standing contract, yes there is legal obligation but it is not
compulsory to fulfill the obligation at the same when one party fulfills his/her obligation. For
example, under standing contract, a contract between Hari and Ram is made and the subject
matter is to sell electric appliances for 5 years. Here, Hari is acceptor or buyer and Ram is
offerer or seller. Suppose, a year has passed and Hari had made no order from Ram. Hence in
this case even Ram bear the loss but he cannot claim to Hari for his compensation because in
standing contract the fixed time and fixed place does not matter much. On contrary, if Hari
order appliance from Ram, he should fulfill hi obligation at the same time when the order by
Hari is been made.
So, with the help of these explanation, even though the seller i.e. Mr, X bear loss, cannot
claim for compensation for his claim because there is no such provision for seller in the case of
Standing contract. Therefore, KITS will not be liable to compensate Mr. X as per his claim.
 B. Should KITS be liable to make order for goods?
Ans: According to rules regarding standing contract, I think KITS will not be liable to make
order of goods. Similarly, standing contract means those type of contract where the offerer will
be actively participate in order to fulfill his/her obligation but the Acceptor may not the liable
to fulfill the obligation at the same time where offerer wants to offer goods to acceptor.
Moreover, the acceptor accepts when he/she wants. So, because of this the KITS should not be
liable to make order for goods. He can order the goods form Mr. X on that say when he/she
wants. Not compulsorily the KITS should receive the contract when Mr. X wants; it is to KITS
who can order at any time when he/she wants it. So, if KITS should make order for goods, if is
not KITS will be forced, it is because KITS wants it. After all, the contract between KITS and
Mr.X is standing contract.