Judgement Appeal (No. 47 of 1945) from a judgment and decree of the High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction (November 9, 1943) by which judgments of that Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction (September 29, 1942, and January 5, 1943) and its decree of the latter date, were varied. The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The appellant was the plaintiff in an action brought in the High Court of Madras in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction for damages for breach of a contract, dated December 24, 1940, for the sale to it by the respondent of 200 long tons of Canadian newsprint, shipment in one lot, preferred in January, but in any case before the end of March, 1941. It also claimed damages for the wrongful detention of certain licences for the import of newsprint granted to it by the Government of India. With regard to the damages for the detention of the import licences, it appeared that on April 17, 1941, when the respondent was already in default, having shipped nothing, newsprint was included in the list of goods for which import licences were required and a notification to that effect was given by the Government. On April 30, and May 1, the appellant obtained two licences, one authorizing it to import from Canada 146 tons 17 cwt. for shipment during May/June, 1941, and another for the import of 36 tons 14 cwt. Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 24 ( 1945- 1946) Free Press of India v. James Finlay and C ompany 173 during April, 1941. Those licences they gave to the respondent in the hope that they would enable the latter to get other paper to take the place of that which it had failed to deliver. But the respondent neither got other paper nor did it return the licences to the appellant when asked to do so, and the consequence was that the licences expired. Meanwhile, the appellant was buying paper locally produced in India, for which no licences were required, and so managed to keep its works going. The action was tried by Bell J., who dismissed the action so far as it related to the breach of contract, holding that all that the respondent had undertaken to do was to use its best endeavours to place the order with suppliers according to the appellants wishes. The action was tried by Bell J., who dismissed the action so far as it related to the breach of contract, holding that all that the respondent had undertaken to do was to use its best endeavours to place the order with suppliers according to the appellants wishes. On the claim for detention of the licences he found for the appellant, and assessed the damages at Rs.1995.6.0. On appeal to the High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdiction (Leach C.J. and Lakshmana Rao J.) the appeal was allowed as regards the breach of contract, and the respondent was held liable, the damages being assessed at Rs.18,440. The appellant also appealed as to the amount of damages awarded for the detention of licences, and that appeal was dismissed. The appellant now appealed solely on the amount of damages, contending that they were awarded on a wrong basis and ought to be largely increased. There was no cross-appeal by the respondent. 1945. Nov. 7. Rewcastle K.C., Pringle K.C. and T. B. W. Ramsay for the appellant. The question for decision is the quantum of damages to be awarded to the appellant in respect of breach of contract and detention of import licences. On the respondents failure to perform the contract the appellant became entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the value of the contract goods at the place to which they were to have been consigned at the time when they should have been delivered. On the respondents failure to perform the contract the appellant became entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the value of the contract goods at the place to which they were to have been consigned at the time when they should have been delivered. [Lord Jowitt L.C. intimated that the Board were of opinion that the appellant, having agreed to the baste on which the damages for breach of contract were assessed and awarded in the court below, which had admittedly made no error in its calculation on that basis, was precluded from re-opening the question of the quantum of such damages.] Rewcastle K.C. referred to Maharani Bent Pershad Koeri v. Dudh Nath Roy (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 216, 221.) where it was said” this admission, if “correctly understood, was erroneous in point of law, and does " not preclude the counsel for the appellant on this appeal " from claiming his clients legal rights." That was applicable here, and the appellant should be given an opportunity of showing that there had been an erroneous admission concerning a matter of law—the basis on which the damages for the breach of contract should be assessed. Pringle K.C. followed. The point in a nutshell as regards damages for detention of the licences is that if the appellant had had the licences undiverted it could have placed a bigger order at a lower price, whereas because of their detention it had to use in advance its allotment and permits. Sir Thomas Strangman K.C. and W. W. K. Page for the respondent, were only required to deal with the damages for the detention of the licences. The basis on which the damages for the detention of the importation licences were assessed is correct, and the appellant is not entitled to any increase on what was so awarded. The permits in the respondents hands did not turn out to be useless; in November they were extended and as a result of that the appellant got the second shipment in January. " Pringle K.C. replied. Dec. 17. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD GODDARD, who stated the facts set out above and continued Their Lordships find it unnecessary in this case to set out the facts Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. " Pringle K.C. replied. Dec. 17. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD GODDARD, who stated the facts set out above and continued Their Lordships find it unnecessary in this case to set out the facts Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 24 ( 1945- 1946) Free Press of India v. James Finlay and C ompany 174 relating to the sale or the breach of contract found by the High Court to have been committed, because on the hearing of the appeal it appears that the Advocate-General, who appeared for the appellant in the court below, agreed that the basis for the assessment of damage submitted by the j counsel for the respondent was correct. On that basis it is not disputed that the amount awarded by the High Court is right. Before this Board it was sought to be contended that the basis on which the damages were assessed was wrong, but their Lordships are clearly of opinion that they cannot advise His Majesty to entertain an appeal where the court from which the appeal is brought acted as they were invited to do by both counsel and in so doing made no mistake in the calculation. With regard to the damages for the detention of the import licences, in respect of the purchases of paper locally produced in India the appellant had recovered damages in the amount awarded by the High Court on appeal. But to enable it to get further supplies it desired to get the licences extended, and this it would have had to do whether the respondent had returned the licences during their currency or not. Both courts in India have accordingly held that this damage is confined to the trouble and expense to which it was put by not having the licences in its hands at the time when it demanded their return, and to some demurrage which it had to pay on a steamer which arrived when the matter was in doubt. The High Court agreed with the findings of fact by Bell J. on this matter, and on the facts found by him their Lordships see no ground for interfering with the amount of damages that he awarded. They will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed, with costs.