Assignment of Business law

Prepared by:
Nisa Idrisi
Id:17305014
Email: nisa.idrisi@g.bracu.ac.bd
Takia Chowdhury
Id:19109002
Email: takia.chowdhury@g.bracu.ac.bd
Kawsar Jamil
Id:19104019
Email: asm.kawsar.jamil@g.bracu.ac.bd
Israt Jahan
Id:19104101
Email: israt.jahan3@g.bracu.ac.bd
Marufa Binta Mizan
Id: 20104019
Email: Marufamizan8@gmail.com
Md.Tahmid Rahman
Id: 19204067
Email: md.tahmid.rahman@g.bracu.ac.bd
Md Tanveer Al Faisal
ID: 19101392
Email: md.tanveer.al.faisal@g.bracu.ac.bd

Prepared for:
Barrister Md. Farid Uddin
Lecturer,Brac university
Submission date:01.01.21
Q1. Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Winner, Ms. Niharika Sen, agreed to sing for Bangla Lion wireless
internet in Bangladesh and entered in to a contract with them to sing in their day long
concert to be arranged for launching their 'Outdoor' product on January 07, 2020 and
accordingly, arrangements were made and singer also arrived at Dhaka little early.

But while in Bangladesh, on receiving handsome amount of money from a

Bangladeshi sponsor, Ms. Sen made another contract with the new sponsor to sing for
them instead, and refuses to perform the earlier contract with Bangla Lion Bangladesh.

Thus, Bangla Lion management became angry against Ms. Sen and like to take legal
action for breach of contract and issued show-cause notice asking why injunction
would not be asked from the court in order to restrain her to sing for the new sponsor.

But, the legal counsel for Ms. Sen replied saying, "since there was no negative
obligation in the contract which his client entered with the Bangla Lion Bangladesh"
there can't be an injunction in this particular situation, however, for breach of contract
his client is ready to pay damages.

- Advice the Bangla Lion Bangladesh

Ans to the question of 01:

This given case falls under the context of Damage remedy for breaching the contract referred to
the Contract Law, 1872. In this case, the issue lies whether the Bangla Lion agency can sue for
restraining Ms Sen to sing for the new sponsor or not. Here, Ms Sen firstly enters into a contract
with Bangla Lion agency to sing in their day-long concert. However, when she comes back to
Bangladesh, she gets another sponsor offering her better, handsome remuneration. This is why
she refuses to sing for Bangla Lion agency. For this reason, the Bangla Lion agency got angry
and wanted to sue Ms, sen for the injunction.
In this case, when Ms Sen entered into a contract with Bangla Lion agency, there were no
negative obligations like restraining her from singing for any other agency for a specific time.
This is why Bangla lion management can not sue for any injunction. The injunction is a remedy
for breach of contract. In case of the injunction, It is generally granted to prevent the breach of an
obligation arising out of a contract. Where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement, to do a
particular act coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not do a specific act, the
court may enforce the negative, according to section 57 of the specific relief act 1877.
According to this section, the court can only help a person liable to do or not to do something
when it is mentioned in the contract and does not matter either implied or expressed. However,
there was no mention of negative obligation in this given case, which can help liable Ms Sen not
perform in any other concert.

Secondly, Ms Sen was supposed to sing for the concert on January 07, 2020, where there was a
reciprocal promise that Ms Sen would get her remuneration after her performance of the concert.
As there was no advance payment, the loss that Bangla Lion agency faced is nominal. However,
as Ms Sen refused to perform her obligation for which the management of Bangla Lion
Bangladesh suffered, he can get nominal damage and compensation, which is a usual remedy for
breaching the contract.

To conclude, after considering all the issues mentioned above, we can decide that as there were
no negative obligations in the contract done by Ms Sen and Bangla Lion agency, there will be no
injunction. Secondly, as Ms Sen breached the contract, she has to pay the nominal damage and
compensation. There are also some relevant cases for these issues such as Kanti Ram Shil vs
Sumitra Devi, Ahad Ali vs Enayentulla.
Q:2: Mr.A, an elderly descendant from the Laksam Nabab family, while in need of cash
fund handed over an old Longcase clock with ornamental engraved designs on it (in fact,
an antique) to an Auction House at Dhaka tosell the same in public auction for him and
informed them that the above clock should not be sold below an amount of Tk. 250,000.
One Mr. Rahman (an antique collector having good knowledge of antiques and their
values) became interested on it and followed the items on different auction dates and found
that nobody is bidding for the same for more than Tk. 1,00,000/-
or so (not understanding the real value of it). But he still keeps on waiting and finally
bought it for Tk. 150,000/-having knowledge of the 'reserved price' for the said item, which
was earlier fixed at Tk. 250,000/-.In terms of the auction, Mr. Rahman paid Tk. 150,000/-to
the Auction House and took delivery of the Longcase clock accordingly.While the Auction
House asks the owner of the Longcase clock(Mr. A) to take the sale proceeds of the auction
sell, he (Mr. A) refuses to accept the same from the Auction House saying that they cannot
sell the antique below the price set by him earlier (which is taka 250,000/-). However, the
Auction house verbally replied that they have done nothing illegal and as such, they are not
bound to give any formal reply to his allegations.
The antique owner (Mr. A) came to you for advice.
Advise him.

Ans to the question no 2:

From the given scene, we can see that Mr A an elderly descendant from Nabab family owes an
antique clock. For some funds, he handed over that clock to an auction house to sell. While
giving that Longcase clock, he also mentioned that the clock should not be sold below
2,50,000Tk. But an antique collector Mr Rahman knowing the reserved value, bought that by
1,50,000Tk without disclosing the reserved value. Now Mr A is refusing to accept the money
from the auction house sold below his mentioned price. On the other hand, the Auction house
was also saying they did not do anything illegal.
An auction is buying selling process of goods where the highest bidder gets good from the lower
bidder. Usually, the auctioneer is the person who conducts the auction, and in the auction, he has
the full right to say good about the product also advertising the product. For his compensation, he
has a specific claim on the clock. If he wants he can sue the purchaser in his name as he has the
possession of the good. An auctioneer acts in a double capacity. He is the agent of both seller and
buyer. Till the sale, he is an agent of the seller, and after they sell, he is an agent of the buyer. An
auctioneer has the implied authority to sell the goods without any restriction. Therefore, a sale by
him, in breach of the contractual orders, to the owner. Furthermore, suppose the owner instructs
the auctioneer not to sell at a 'reserved price', and the auctioneer sells it below the price. In that
case, the transaction is binding on the owner until the buyer knows that the auctioneer's
jurisdiction has a minimum price and limits than sale will not be binding on the auctioneer.

In this given case, Mr A needs to prove that Mr Rahman knew about the reserved price and knew
antique as Mr Rahman is an antique collector and knew about the reserved price. Still he tracked
that Longcase clock in so many auctions and observed that no one bids more than 1,00,000Tk.
So, he bid 1,50,000Tk in the auction and took the clock at a lower than reserved price. If all these
things get proved by Mr A, he can claim for only 1,00,000Tk as the sale is not binding and only
ask for the left reserved amount, or he can claim to return his property. On the other hand, if he
fails to prove that Mr Rahman was aware of the reserved price, the auctioneer can take him to
court as he is the double capacity according to law to have those left reservations.