Judgment :- 1. These appeals are against the decision of the Anjikaimal District Court awarding damages for the non-delivery of cocoanuts according to the provisions of Ext.D subsequent to the publication of Ext. K, an order of the Government of Cochin in the Development Department No. 105, dated 29.4.1122. The contention of the appellant is that Ext. D became irnfructuous with the publication of Ext. K and that the suits should have been dismissed. 2. Ext.D is dated 16.10.1121 and it is common ground that it embodies an agreement to sell future goods, that is, the cocoanuts to be harvested from the three items of property mentioned therein during a period of one year from 1.11.1121, the price payable for every 120 nuts being the market price per chothana of cocoanut oil in the Mattancherry bazaar on the dates of delivery plus an additional sum of Re. 1-6-0. Ext. K fixed a ceiling price for cocoanut oil and is in the following terms: "No. 105 - In exercise of the powers conferred on them by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Cochin Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Powers Proclamation, III of 112, Government are hereby pleased with effect from the 15th day of December 1946 to fix the maximum prices of copra and cocoanut oil (without containers) at Rs. 884 and Rs. 1,390 per ton respectively and to prohibit the export from Cochin State of copra and cocoanut oil except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the Director of Food Supplies or any officer duly authorised by him in his behalf". 3. Under the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the term "contract of sale" includes both an actual sale and an agreement to sell, that is, an executory contract of sale as in this case. Sub-s. (3) of S. 4 defines the difference between the two as follows: "Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell". In either case it is essential that the contract should provide for the payment of a money consideration. In either case it is essential that the contract should provide for the payment of a money consideration. Though it is not necessary that the contract should specify the amount, the parties must at least specify the method by which the price will be determined. 4. S. 9(1) which corresponds to S. 8(1) of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893, provides: "The price in a contract of sale may be fixed by the contract or may be left to be fixed in manner thereby agreed or may be determined by the course of dealing between the parties". There can be no doubt that when the price is determined as provided in a contract it is the same as if the parties had fixed it in the contract and that if the method for fixing the price provided in an executory contract of sale becomes unavailable, that by itself will preclude the formation of a contract. As stated in Benjamin on Sale, Eighth Edition, page 150: "It is not uncommon for the parties to agree that the price of the goods shall be fixed by valuers appointed by them. In such cases they are of course bound by their bargain, and the price when so fixed is as such part of the contract as if fixed by themselves. But it is essential to the formation of the contract that the price should be fixed in accordance with this agreement, and if the persons appointed as valuers fail, or refuse to act, there is no contract in the case of an executory agreement, that is to say, an agreement to sell". 5. What Ext. D has done is to prescribe the manner in which the price should be computed, namely, the ascertainment of the price of cocoanut oil per chothana in the Mattancherry bazaar on the relevant dates, the addition of Re. 1-6-0 thereto and the acceptance of the total as the price per 120 cocoanuts. According to the appellant the formula for the calculation of the price became unavailable because of the disappearance of a "market price" for cocoanut oil in the Mattancherry bazaar with the publication of Ext. K and according to Mr. K.P. Abraham, learned counsel for the respondent, the price actually obtaining in the Mattancherry bazaar, even if it be a price controlled as by Ext. K and according to Mr. K.P. Abraham, learned counsel for the respondent, the price actually obtaining in the Mattancherry bazaar, even if it be a price controlled as by Ext. K, should be deemed to be the "market price" for the purpose of Ext. D. The contention of the respondent has found favour with the court below: "The market price of oil is the price available in the market for the oil and when the Government fixes the price of oil, that price is to be regarded as the market price". (Para. 4 of the lower court judgment) 6. We cannot agree. It is true that the term "market price" in a contract as pointed out in 83 L.J.K.B. 220 has no fixed definite legal significance which attaches to it invariably and that it must be construed with reference to the context and surrounding circumstances in every case. We have no doubt that in this particular case what was meant was just the ordinary meaning of the term, namely: "The price fixed by buyer and seller in an open market in the usual and ordinary course of lawful trade and competition; the price or value of the article established or shown by sales, public or private, in the ordinary way of business; the fair value of the property as between one who desires to sell". (Centuary Dictionary quoted in Iyer's Law Lexicon, p. 790). or in the words, the price of the goods as determined by the economic laws of supply and demand and the ordinary incidents of speculation and competition and not a price fixed or controlled by a governmental order. 7. Ext. K has fixed the ceiling price of cocoanut oil at Rs. 1,390 per ton and thereby prevented any competitive price beyond that level. It must follow that the formula prescribed in Ext. D for arriving at the price of cocoanuts which is based on free trading in cocoanut oil and the resultant price became unworkable, and that no contract in pursuance of which delivery should be made arose during the period in question. 8. 1954 Supreme Court Appeals 187 was cited before us. That case deals with the doctrine of frustration or the impossibility of performance on account of circumstances beyond the control of the parties. 8. 1954 Supreme Court Appeals 187 was cited before us. That case deals with the doctrine of frustration or the impossibility of performance on account of circumstances beyond the control of the parties. Frustration as stated by the Supreme Court: "is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done". What we are concerned with in this case is not a discharge of a contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done but an impediment which prevents the formation of the contract itself namely, the impossibility to fix the price according to the formula evolved by the parties, a fixation which is essential for the formation of an executory contract of sale under the provisions of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 9. The appeals must succeed and we allow them but in the special circumstances of the case we shall direct the parties to bear their respective costs here and in the court below. Allowed.