Question

A contracts with B to construct a cold storage facility for ₹ 50 lakh within 6 months. After the expiry of the time period, B fails to perform the contract. A immediately hires C to complete the construction at ₹ 60 lakh and later files a suit against B claiming ₹ 10 lakh as the additional cost incurred. Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

• A. A must sue only for damages and not substituted performance.
• B. A cannot recover the cost because A did not give B prior notice.
• C. A can recover ₹ 10 lakh because B breached the contract.
• D. A can recover only if the court first declares B guilty of breach.

Hint:

Section 20 is the "Substituted Performance" section. The magic number is "30 days"—you MUST give the defaulter 30 days' notice before hiring someone else if you want to recover the extra cost!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

This question can be tested in two parts: whether substituted performance is available to A in principle, and whether A actually followed the procedure the statute requires to use it.

Test 1, availability in principle:
Section 20 does recognise substituted performance as a remedy, so A is not confined to an ordinary damages suit, and B's own breach is a real trigger that could, in principle, support A's claim.

Test 2, procedural compliance:
Before hiring a third party, the statute requires the aggrieved party to send the defaulter written notice giving at least thirty days to perform. A hired C immediately, without any such notice to B.

Conclusion:
Although A passes Test 1, A fails Test 2 because the mandatory notice was never sent. That procedural failure, not the unavailability of the remedy or any need for a prior court declaration, is what actually bars A's recovery of the extra ten lakh.

\[ \boxed{\text{A cannot recover the cost because A did not give B prior notice.}} \]

Answer 2

The written notice requirement in Section 20 exists to give the defaulting party a genuine last chance to perform before the other side spends money getting the work done elsewhere and then comes back demanding reimbursement. Measuring each option against that fair-warning purpose shows why only one correctly explains A's position.

1. A must sue only for damages and not substituted performance: Shutting out substituted performance altogether would ignore that the law provides this remedy precisely so an injured party is not stuck waiting on a defaulter.
2. A cannot recover the cost because A did not give B prior notice: The whole point of requiring notice is to give the defaulting party a real opportunity to fix the default before someone else is hired at possibly greater expense. A skipped that opportunity entirely, denying B the fair warning the law intends.
3. A can recover ₹ 10 lakh because B breached the contract: B's breach explains why A needed a remedy in the first place, but it says nothing about whether A followed the fair-warning procedure the law insists on before shifting the extra cost onto B.
4. A can recover only if the court first declares B guilty of breach: The purpose of the notice requirement is to let the defaulter act before the extra expense is incurred, not to have a court retrospectively certify the breach.

Because A denied B the fair chance to perform that the notice requirement is meant to guarantee, it is this missing notice that actually blocks A's claim.

Therefore, the correct answer is A cannot recover the cost because A did not give B prior notice.