Force Majeure, Bailment and Mitigation in a Cold-Storage Contract
Greenfield Foods Pvt. Ltd. contracted with ColdChain Logistics on 1 January 2024 for 24 months' storage of 500 MT of frozen mango pulp at ₹18 lakh per month. Clause 14 provided: 'Neither party shall be liable for any failure or delay caused by events beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God, government action, epidemics and strikes.' On 4 March 2024, a district administration order restricted the movement of frozen goods for 45 days following an outbreak of disease; on 20 March the same authority requisitioned ColdChain's main warehouse for 20 days. ColdChain also operates an unaffected second warehouse of 600 MT capacity, but did not shift the pulp there, and stopped accepting deliveries for 50 days. Of the 300 MT already in the second warehouse, 120 MT spoiled over six days because staff shortages led to the temperature being held at −6°C instead of the specified −18°C. Greenfield lost ₹2.4 crore on the spoiled pulp and paid ₹30 lakh per month for two months for replacement storage elsewhere.
1. Does Clause 14 or Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act govern ColdChain's failure? Analyse the two events separately.
Read the worked answer
In Indian law frustration is governed by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act; there is no separate English doctrine (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., 1954). Section 56 applies only where performance becomes impossible or unlawful without the promisor's act, and it operates 'subject to' an express contract to the contrary. Where the parties have provided for the consequences of specified events, the clause governs and Section 56 is not reached (Energy Watchdog v. CERC, 2017).
Clause 14 covers 'government action', and both the 45-day movement restriction and the 20-day requisition fall within it.
But the clause is a shield, not a licence: it excuses only failures caused by the event. The two events are therefore analysed separately:
- 45-day restriction - ColdChain's non-acceptance during this period is excused.
- Requisition of the main warehouse - excused for 20 days, but only to the extent ColdChain could not reasonably have avoided the effect.
The failure to shift the pulp to an unaffected 600 MT warehouse, into which 300 MT had already been moved, was not caused by any government order. Equally, the 120 MT lost at −6°C had nothing to do with government action. To that extent Clause 14 does not assist, and ColdChain is in breach.
2. Is ColdChain liable for the 120 MT lost at −6°C? Discuss the standard of care of a bailee for reward.
Read the worked answer
ColdChain is a bailee for reward. Section 151 of the Contract Act requires a bailee to take 'as much care of the goods bailed as an ordinary prudent man would take of similar goods of his own'; Section 152 relieves him only if he has in fact taken that care. Sections 160 and 161 expose a bailee who fails to return the goods to restoration or compensation.
The contractual specification of −18°C fixes the standard of care, and the deviation to −6°C for six days is a clear failure of that standard. The burden of proving care lies on the bailee once the bailor proves delivery in good condition and non-return in that condition.
Staff shortage is not vis major. It is an internal management failure and could have been met by hiring agency staff or a temporary contractor; it does not qualify as an event beyond ColdChain's reasonable control within Clause 14.
Concurrent liability. The same facts ground an action in tort for negligence in the handling of another's goods, and the bailor may elect between contract and tort, though he cannot recover twice. Damages would be measured by the market value of the 120 MT of pulp at the place and date of loss, together with consequential losses that were foreseeable.
3. How should damages be assessed under Section 73, and what is the effect of the duty to mitigate?
Read the worked answer
Section 73 compensates for loss which 'naturally arose in the usual course of things' from the breach, or which the parties knew, when contracting, to be likely to result - the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854). Spoilage of frozen pulp through failure to maintain temperature is a natural consequence, and its likelihood was known to a cold-storage operator.
Replacement storage. The ₹30 lakh per month paid elsewhere is recoverable only as to the excess over the contractual ₹18 lakh per month - ₹12 lakh per month - and only for the period reasonably necessary. Two months is recoverable if the market offered no cheaper substitute; if it did, the excess beyond that period is not.
Mitigation. The Explanation to Section 73 imposes a duty to mitigate, and a plaintiff cannot recover for loss avoidable by reasonable steps. Greenfield's failure to accept a reasonable alternative would reduce its award; conversely, ColdChain's failure to use its own unaffected warehouse is the direct cause of that part of the loss and cannot be pleaded as the claimant's failure.
Apportionment. No damages are payable for the 45-day restriction, which is a covered event; the 20-day requisition is covered only to the extent ColdChain could not have mitigated. Section 74 is not engaged, because Clause 14 names no sum payable on breach and is an excuse clause, not a liquidated-damages clause.