Indian Contract Act — Section 54
Effect of default as to that promise which should be first performed, in contract consisting
54. Effect of default as to that promise which should be first performed, in contract consisting of reciprocal promises.—When a contract consists of reciprocal promises, such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails to perform it, such promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise, and must make compensation to the other party to the contract for any loss which such other party may sustain by the non-performance of the contract.
Illustrations
(a) A hires B’s ship to take in and convey, from Calcutta to the Mauritius, a cargo to be provided by A, B receiving a certain freight for its conveyance. A does not provide any cargo for the ship. A cannot claim the performance of B’s promise, and must make compensation to B for the loss which B sustains by the non-performance of the contract.
(b) A contracts with B to execute certain builder’s work for a fixed price, B supplying the scaffolding and timber necessary for the work. B refuses to furnish any scaffolding or timber, and the work cannot be executed. A need not execute the work, and B is bound to make compensation to A for any loss caused to him by the non-performance of the contract.
(c) A contracts with B to deliver to him, at a specified price, certain merchandise on board a ship which cannot arrive for a month, and B engages to pay for the merchandise within a week from the date of the contract. B does not pay within the week. A’s promise to deliver need not be performed, and B must make compensation.
(d) A promises B to sell him one hundred bales of merchandise, to be delivered next day, and B promises A to pay for them within a month. A does not deliver according to his promise. B’s promise to pay need not be performed, and A must make compensation.
Follow cited cases · Browse courts and years · Research topics
Judgments citing Section 54
- AKM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. VESTA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
- AKM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. VESTA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Piyus Kumar
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Dinkar Choudhary
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Uday Singh
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Dinkar Choudhary
- Ram Uday Singh v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Piyus Kumar
- The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
- NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD
- UMADEVI AGARWALLA & ORS. v. NIRMAL KANODIA & ORS.
- UMADEVI AGARWALLA & ORS. v. NIRMAL KANODIA & ORS.
- S. HEMANTHA RAO v. H. INBAVALLI
- Dr. Samar Sengupta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Raja v. Indira
- Madrasreserved High Court · 2025
- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED v. BRITISH MARINE PLC
- Shashi Bala & Ors. v. NIDHI GUPTA, J
- BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD v. SMT. HARIPRIYA
Text reproduced from the public statutes on which the corpus is built. Verify against the official Gazette before relying on it. This is statute reference, not legal advice.