Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter VI: Of the Consequences of Breach of Contract
Section 73: Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract
In plain words
When a contract is broken, the party who suffers can claim compensation from the party in breach for loss that naturally arose in the usual course of things, or that both parties knew when contracting was likely to result.
- No compensation is given for remote and indirect loss.
- The same applies when an obligation resembling a contractual one is not discharged.
- In working out the loss, the means available to reduce the inconvenience caused by the breach must be taken into account.
Example: A contracts to sell B saltpetre and fails to deliver. B can recover the amount, if any, by which the market price on the delivery date exceeded the contract price, but not profits from an unusual resale A did not know about.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
Explanation.In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.
Illustrations
(a) A contracts to sell and deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B, at a certain price to be paid on delivery. A breaks his promise. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the sum, if any, by which the contract price falls short of the price for which B might have obtained 50 maunds of saltpetre of like quality at the time when the saltpetre ought to have been delivered.
(b) A hires Bs ship to go to Bombay, and there take on board, on the first of January, a cargo, which A is to provide, and to bring it to Calcutta, the freight to be paid when earned. Bs ship does not go to Bombay, but A has opportunities of procuring suitable conveyance for the cargo upon terms as advantageous as those on which he had chartered the ship. A avails himself of those opportunities, but is put to trouble and expense in doing so. A is entitled to receive compensation from B in respect of such trouble and expense.
(c) A contracts to buy of B, at a stated price, 50 maunds of rice, no time being fixed for delivery. A afterwards informs B that he will not accept the rice if tendered to him. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the amount, if any, by which the contract price exceeds that which B can obtain for the rice at the time when A informs B that he will not accept it.
(d) A contracts to buy B's ship for 60,000 rupees, but breaks his promise. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the excess, if any, of the contract price over the price which B can obtain for the ship at the time of the breach of promise.
(e) A, the owner of a boat, contracts with B to take a cargo of jute to Mirzapur, for sale at that place, starting on a specified day. The boat, owing to some avoidable cause, does not start at the time appointed, whereby the arrival of the cargo at Mirzapur is delayed beyond the time when it would have arrived if the boat had sailed according to the contract. After that date, and before the arrival of the cargo, the price of jute falls. The measure of the compensation payable to B by A is the difference between the price which B could have obtained for the cargo at Mirzapur at the time when it would have arrived if forwarded in due course, and its market price at the time when it actually arrived.
(f) A contracts to repair B's house in a certain manner, and receives payment in advance. A repairs the house, but not according to contract. B is entitled to recover from A the cost of making the repairs conform to the contract.
(g) A contracts to let his ship to B for a year, from the first of January, for a certain price. Freights rise, and, on the first of January, the hire obtainable for the ship is higher than the contract price. A breaks his promise. He must pay to B, by way of compensation, a sum equal to the difference between the contract price and the price for which B could hire a similar ship for a year on and from the first of January.
(h) A contracts to supply B with a certain quantity of iron at a fixed price, being a higher price than that for which A could procure and deliver the iron. B wrongfully refuses to receive the iron. B must pay to A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the iron and the sum for which A could have obtained and delivered it.
(i) A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed, without delay, to A's mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of the machine. B unreasonably delays the delivery of the machine, and A, in consequence, loses a profitable contract with the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the Government contract.
(j) A, having contracted with B to supply B with 1,000 tons of iron at 100 rupees a ton, to be delivered at a stated time, contracts with C for the purchase of 1,000 tons of iron at 80 rupees a ton, telling C that he does so for the purpose of performing his contract with B. C fails to perform his contract with A, who cannot procure other iron, and B, in consequence, rescinds the contract. C must pay to A 20,000 rupees, being the profit which A would have made by the performance of his contract with B.
(k) A contracts with B to make and deliver to B, by a fixed day, for a specified price, a certain piece of machinery. A does not deliver the piece of machinery at the time specified, and in consequence of this, B is obliged to procure another at a higher piece than that which he was to have paid to A, and is prevented from performing a contract which B had made with a third person at the time of his contract with A (but which had not been then communicated to A), and is compelled to make compensation for breach of that contract. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the price of machinery and the sum paid by B for another, but not the sum paid by B to the third person by way of compensation.
(l) A, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that B may give possession of it at that time to C, to whom B has contracted to let it. A is informed of the contract between B and C. A builds the house so badly that, before the first of January, it falls down and has to be re-built by B, who, in consequence, loses the rent which he was to have received from C, and is obliged to make compensation to C for the breach of his contract. A must make compensation to B for the cost of rebuilding the house, for the rent lost, and for the compensation made to C.
(m) A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
(n) A contracts to pay a sum of money to B on a day specified. A does not pay the money on that day, B, in consequence of not receiving the money on that day, is unable to pay his debts, and is totally ruined. A is not liable to make good to B anything except the principal sum he contracted to pay, together with interest up to the day of payment.
(o) A contracts to deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B on the first of January, at a certain price. B afterwards, before the first of January, contracts to sell the saltpetre to C at a price higher than the market price of the first of January. A breaks his promise.
In estimating the compensation payable by A to B, the market price of the first of January, and not the profit which would have arisen to B from the sale to C, is to be taken into account.
(p) A contracts to sell and deliver 500 bales of cotton to B on a fixed day. A knows nothing of Bs mode of conducting his business. A breaks his promise, and B, having no cotton, is obliged to close his mill. A is not responsible to B for the loss caused to B by the closing of the mill.
(q) A contracts to sell and deliver to B, on the first of January, certain cloth which B intends to manufacture into caps of a particular kind, for which there is no demand, except at that season. The cloth is not delivered till after the appointed time, and too late to be used that year in making caps. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the cloth and its market price at the time of delivery, but not the profits which he expected to obtain by making caps, nor the expenses which he has been put to in making preparation for the manufacture.
(r) A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way of deposit, one-half of his passage-money. The ship does not sail on the first of January, and B, after being in consequence detained in Calcutta for some time and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest, and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon for the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 73 sets the rule for damages for breach of contract. The injured party gets compensation for loss that naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach, or that both parties knew, when they made the contract, was likely to result. Remote and indirect losses are not recoverable.
Two limbs of recoverable loss
- Ordinary loss: what naturally arises in the usual course of things from such a breach.
- Special loss: loss arising from special circumstances, recoverable only if both parties knew of them when contracting.
Remoteness
Losses that are too remote or indirect, such as the profits of an unusual onward sale the defaulting party did not know about, are not recoverable. This mirrors the well known English rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, which the illustrations to section 73 reflect.
Compensation, not punishment
Damages aim to put the injured party in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed. They are not meant to punish the party in breach. In sales, the usual measure is the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of breach.
Mitigation
The Explanation requires the court to take into account the means available to the injured party to reduce the loss. A party who could reasonably have bought substitute goods cannot recover loss he could have avoided.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. 2003 INSC 241
Read sections 73 and 74 together: where the parties have clearly agreed a sum as compensation for breach, the injured party need not prove actual loss, and the burden is on the party in breach to show the amount is unreasonable.
Common mistakes
- Claiming loss from special circumstances the other party did not know of.
- Ignoring the duty to mitigate.
- Treating damages as punishment.
Read with: Section 74 Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 75 Indian Contract Act, 1872
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 73
-
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited and Another
Whether the appellant-GUVNL is entitled to reimbursement of the fixed charges, in relation to the diverted electricity from out of its allocated share by Essar Power Limited (EPL) to its sister company-Essar Steel…
-
K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the courts below dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant-purchaser for specific performance of contract; and whether the appellant entitled to the…
-
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks of India
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court upholding the arbitral award.
-
Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Others
In petition u/s.34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Single Judge had set aside the Arbitral Award. Division Bench in appeal thereagainst u/s.37, Arbitration Act by way of the impugned judgment, inter alia upheld…
-
Opg Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited & Anr.
Issue arose as to whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India, or/and is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award; whether the holding company could have been…
-
The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu
(i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether…
-
M/S Unibros v. All India Radio
Arbitral award in question if in conflict with the public policy of India and; whether a claim on account of loss of profit is liable to succeed merely on the ground that there has been d elay in the execution of the…
-
Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and thereby setting aside the arbitral award.
- Authorised Officer State Bank of India v. C. Natarajan & Anr
- Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Abhijit Paul
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
- Sukhbir v. Ajit Singh
- M/S. Padia Timber Company (P) Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust Through Its Secretary
- American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. v. Mmtc Ltd.
- Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board v. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd and Ors.
- M/S. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
- Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap & Ors. v. Smt. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar & Ors.
- Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Tata Communications Ltd.
- Wg Cdr. Ashwini Kumar Handa (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors.
- Urmila Devi and Others v. The Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, Through Temple Commissioner and Others
- Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Limited
- State of Gujarat v. M/S Kothari and Associates
- M/S. Construction & Design Services v. Delhi Development Authority
- M/S. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
- Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad
- Phulchand Exports Ltd v. O.O.O. Patriot
- Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Mare Shipping Inc.
- B.S.N.L v. Reliance Communication Ltd.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S. Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
- Incable Net (Andhra) Limited & Ors. v. Ap Aksh Broadband Ltd. & Ors.
- Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
- Numaligarh Refinery Lid. v. Daelim Industrial Company Lid.
- Mcdermott Interntional Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors.
- Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. v. Sikander Singh
- Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Anr.
- Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh
- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. M/S. Annapurna Constructions
- Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
- M/S Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim
- State Bank of Saurashtra v. P. N. B.
- Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa, Etc. Etc. v. N.C. Budharaj (Dead) by Lrs. Etc. Etc.
- Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd.
- Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
- Sri Tarsem Singh v. Sri Sukhminder Singh
- Union of India v. M/S. Jain Associates and Anr.
- Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh
- Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
- Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay City-Iii, Bombay v. Shantilal Private Limited Bombay
- Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona
- Shree Hanuman Coti'On Mills & Ors. v. Tata Air-Craft Ltd.
- P. S. N. S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd and Anr. v. Express Newspapers Ltd., Bombay
- Sir Chunilal v. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
- M/S. Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. M/S. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Another
- Shiva Jute Baling Limited v. Hindley and Company Limited
- Seth Thawardas Pherumal v. The Union of India