 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 11 71. Days of grace.- We have received conflicting suggestions relating to the provision for days of grace. One view is that no days of grace should be allowed at all and the reason assigned is that if a person contracts to pay the amount due under an instrument on demand he could as well have fixed a time limit to suit his convenience. This view has the support of Chalmers.1 The Geneva Convention of 1930 has also abolished days of grace. 1. Chalmers Negotiable Instruments Act, Introduction to the 1st Edn., p. 18. The Bharat Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, and the Indian Merchants Chamber, Bombay are, however, against any alteration and are of the view that days of grace should be retained as merchants have become accustomed to this. The Bengal National Chamber of Commerce has, on the other hand, suggested that this provision should be made subject to variation by contract, if any, between the parties. We are of the opinion that any alteration of the existing provision would lead to confusion in dealing between the merchants, and do not, accordingly, recommend any change relating to days of grace.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back