Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Letter of Intent, though unsigned, formed the basis of a binding contract through conduct and performance; stamp duty was not required; the respondent proved supply and outstanding invoices; interest was not pleaded or proved and thus not recoverable.
Source excerpt
There was no valid and binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendants as the award letter did not constitute acceptance, no contract was signed, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the required formalities. Therefore, there was no breach of contract and the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Source excerpt
There was a legally enforceable contract for the supply of 59 containers of bitumen at a reasonable price, to be delivered in consignments of 12 containers every 10 days, with time being of the essence. The Defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed quantity within the stipulated period. The Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for the delay, while the Defendant is entitled to the admitted sum for unpaid invoices. The Defendant's claims for special damages for container delays and transport were not strictly proved and are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court found that a legally enforceable contract existed between the parties for the supply of 59 containers of bitumen at a reasonable price, with delivery in consignments of 12 containers every 10 days, and that time was of the essence. The defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed quantity within the stipulated time, causing the plaintiff to suffer quantifiable damages. The plaintiff was also in breach for failing to pay certain invoices, but the defendant's counterclaims for special damages relating to container delays were not strictly proved.
Source excerpt
There was no concluded agreement between the parties as the prescribed mode of acceptance was not complied with; the trial court erred in holding the appellants liable based on exhibits P3 and P6.
Source excerpt
There was no binding agreement between the parties as the prescribed mode of acceptance was not complied with; the purported acceptance in exhibit P6 was neither absolute nor in the manner required by exhibit P3. Acceptance by conduct was not pleaded and cannot be considered on appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
