`If two parties have concluded a contract which one of them has broken, the damage which the other party should receive in respect of such an infringement should be either such that it can reasonably and reasonably be considered that it would of course result from such an infringement, that is to say, after the normal course of events. or those which can reasonably be assumed to be considered by both parties at the time of conclusion of the contract as the likely result of the breach of contract. If the particular circumstances in which the contract was actually concluded were communicated to the defendants by the applicants and were therefore known to both parties, the damage resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they would reasonably consider, would be the amount of the damage that would normally result from an infringement in the circumstances so well known and communicated. On the other hand, if those particular circumstances were totally unknown to the offender, it could at most be considered that he would have had in his consideration only the amount of the damage resulting from such an offence in general and in the many cases which are not concerned by particular circumstances. Indeed, if the circumstances had been known, the parties could have foreseen the infringement by special conditions concerning the damage in that case, so that it would be very unfair to deprive it”. In any event, the victim is not required, otherwise, to prove the damage he has actually suffered before being able to assert a decree and the Tribunal is empowered to award adequate compensation in the event of a violation, even if no real damage has been proved as a result of the offence. However, the phrase “whether or not actual damage or damage has been caused” must include different types of contracts to be judged. In the event of a breach of certain contracts, it may be impossible for the court to assess compensation for infringement, while in other cases compensation may be calculated according to established rules. If the Tribunal is not in a position to assess compensation, the amount mentioned by the parties, if it is considered to be a true forecast, may be used as an appropriate compensation measure, but not where that amount has the character of a penalty. If a loss of money can be found, the party who wants to claim compensation must prove the damage he has suffered. “Under the terms of the agreements, the amounts deposited by the claimant as security for the proper performance of contracts should expire if the claimant has not fulfilled its part of the contract. The High Court found that the deposits thus made could be considered serious money.
But this view cannot be accepted. According to Earl Jowitt, in “The Dictionary of English Law” at page 689: “Giving serious or serious money is a way to accept a contract of sale or something like that, by giving the seller a nominal sum (for example. B a shilling) as a sign that the parties are serious or have made a decision.” As the Justice Commission found in Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup A.I.R.1926 S.C], the words “pay” that appear in the first condition do not qualify the second condition with respect to the determination by penalty . . .