RON V.

HARRY

IN THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

IN THE MATTER OF:

In the exercise of civil appellate jurisdiction

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO:

UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MR. RON PETITIONER

V.

MR. HARRY RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDGES

OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................. 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................. 5-6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 8-9

ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUEMENTS .................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... 12-

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

V. VERSUS

& AND

ORS. OTHERS

NO. NUMBER

PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

Ltd. LIMITED

Art. ARTICLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

Vol. VOLUME

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

ie., THAT IS

Etc., ET CETRA

SC SUPREME COURT

Co. CONJUNCT

Rep. REPRESENTATIVE

pp. PER PROCURATIONEM

Rs. RUPEES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES:
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

CASES REFERRED:
Pinnel’s Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a,[1] also known as Penny v. Cole
John Weston Foakes v. Julia Beer [1884][2] UKHL
Jorden v. Money [1854][3]
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. The State of Gujarat
Cumber v. Wane (1721) Stra. 426
Holmes v. Mather, (1875) LR 10 Ex.261, 267;
P.K. Kalasami Nadar vs Alwar Chettiar & Ors. on 20 January, 1961
K.V.S. Sheik Mahamad Ravuther vs The B.I.S.N. Co. And Ors. on 23 March, 1908
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated & ORS. on 08 August 2003
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 501 US 663 (1991)

1. [1]*Coke, Edward (1826) [1604]. Thomas, John Henry; Fraser, John Farquhar
(eds.). The Reports of Sir Edward Coke. Vol. 3. Butterworth's. pp. 238–239.
Retrieved 2008-10-11. Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a
2. [2]* Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1, 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605,
(1884) 9 App Cas 605 (16 May 1884)
3. [3]* Jorden v Money (1854) 5 HLC 185; (1854) 10 ER 868, HL, p 880 Lord
Cranworth LC

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

LEGAL DICTIONARIES:
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary.
Concise Law Dictionary.
Black’s Law Dictionary.

WEBSITES REFERRED:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinnel%27s_Case&oldid=1049767253
https://tripakshalitigation.com/doctrine-of-promissory-estoppel/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/breach-of-contract-anticipatory-breach-
32653.html
https://indiankanoon.org
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l249-Promissory-Estoppel.html
Pinnel’s Case in English Law Example | GraduateWay
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5779f3e9e561096c9312fd61

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the respondent, hereby humbly submits to this Hon’ble High Court’s
Jurisdiction in the matter of Ron v. Harry, under, section 39[1], section 73[2], section
74[3] and section 115[4] from the Indian Contract Act, 1872 of the Indian Constitution.
The respondent would like to humbly submit that we will hold responsibility for the
maintainability of the case filed by the appellant. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need
not entertain its jurisdiction in this writ petition.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

[1]*
Effect of refusal of party to perform promise wholly. When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or
disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to the contract,
unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance.
[2]*
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.
[3]*
Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for. A stipulation for increased interest from
the date of default may be a stipulation by way of penalty.
[4]*
When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person
to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any
suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

STATEMENT OF FACTS

❖ Harry is a teacher. He has been interested in property development. In February

2021, Harry found what he believed to be a property ripe for development.

❖ Harry decided to employ Ron, a local builder, to help with the restoration of the
property.

❖ Ron told Harry that the work would cost Rs. 18,00,000 including labor and
materials.

❖ Harry accepted Ron’s quote on the provision that the building work should be
completed by 5th April.

❖ Harry told Ron that property had to be ready by that date because rather than selling
the property, he was going to let it to a business as a ‘corporate let’. Harry was
expecting to get Rs. 12,000 per month rent for the newly furnished luxury flat.

❖ Ron started to work from mid of February, unfortunately due to bad weather and
his plasterer Cedrick, having to go into hospital for an operation. Ron realized that
it would be unlikely that he would finish the job by 5 th April.

❖ Ron informed Harry that in order to finish the work on time he would have to pay
his existing men overtime and employ a new plasterer to replace Cedrick.

❖ In all, he would have to raise the contract price by Rs. 5,00,000.

❖ Although, Harry could see his profits dwindling he was more concerned that the flat
would not be ready for the tenant to move in and so he reluctantly agreed.

❖ Ron completed the project by the 2nd April and sent Harry his bill for Rs. 23,00.000.
Harry said that due to financial difficulties he could only afford to pay Rs.
20,00,000.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

❖ Ron thought he better accept the Rs. 20,00,000 rather than he ended up with nothing
at all. Harry sent Ron a cheque for the Rs. 20,00,000 together with a picture of Jesus
as a thank you.

❖ In July 2021, Ron heard that in May 2021, Harry had taken all his family abroad
for a three-week holiday.

❖ Ron asked Harry for the Rs. 3,00,000 balances plus interest to date. Harry refused
to pay the outstanding Rs. 3,00,000.

❖ Ron decided to sue Harry for the outstanding amount plus interest. At first instance,
lower court held that Harry should pay the Rs. 3,00,000 to Ron plus interest.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Doctrine of Equitable Promissory Estoppels is applied?

2. Whether negligence and breach of contract is applicable?

3. Whether the Authority of Pinnel’s Case (1602) is applied correctly?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Doctrine of Equitable Promissory Estoppels is applied?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits before this Hon’ble High
Court Judges of Karnataka that in the given factual matrix, there is no necessity or
compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble court and invoking its powers under Section
115 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The doctrine of estoppel in its different forms is both
a blessing and a curse; if you were the recipient of a promise, you may be able to hold the
other party to account – but you must be cautious about the potential consequences of
informal proposals you may have made to others.

2. Whether negligence and breach of contract is applicable?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits before this Hon’ble High
Court Judges of Karnataka that in the given factual matrix, the respondent is not held
liable. He told that due to some financial difficulties he could pay only Rs.20,00,000.
Petitioner also agreed with it in the first place, so, the petitioner is liable under Section 62
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and it can be applied in the given case.

3. Whether the Authority of Pinnel’s Case (1602) is applied correctly?

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before this Hon’ble High
Court Judges of Karnataka that in the given factual matrix, the Authority of Pinnel’s Case
is not applicable. The debtor’s insolvency has led to such crisis and is need of some time.
Normally the courts are not required to exercise such imagination in the discovery of a
consideration for the acceptance of part of a debt in full discharge.
Part payment at the times of crisis was managed with difficulty and the respondent hereby
humbly requests you to declare the new judgement which reverses the decision of the lower
court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Doctrine of Equitable Promissory is applied?

The doctrine of equitable promissory estoppels is not applied here. Because Promissory
estoppel applies when the promisor has made a promise to the promise. The promise must
have relied on the promise and suffered a loss due to non-performance of the contract.
The doctrine prevents the promisor or enterprise from going back on their word or
promise.

•The doctrine aims to enforce an oral or written commitment made under a contract.
Harry has told it to him orally. He must stick by his words and pay 3 lakhs, with interest.
Ron has put in extra hours. The promise should have suffered a financial setback. Any
losses suffered as a result of the contract might be recovered from the promisor by the
promise or aggrieved party. The promisor is not required to provide formal consideration
for the promise made under the contract. A reasonable person should have been able to
rely on the guarantee. The promise should have acted responsibly and depended on it. The
theory allows the injured party or the promise to sue for breach of contract.

• Mr. Ron as well did not fail to complete his task on time due to bad weather and his
worker Cedrick being fallen ill, he was worried about the completion of task on time, so
he demanded for extra payment.

• It is merely not his fault and so Mr. Ron cannot be blamed for the same.

• He agreed for the payment of 20,00,000/- just because he did not want to end up with
nothing at all, this does not mean Mr. Harry should not pay his money back.

• He is not demanding his amount with interest for his benefit, he is asking for interest as
he have borrowed the money from third person.

• He needs to be compensated for the same.

• Under the section 73, when a contract has been broken the party who suffers by such
breach is entitled to receive, from party who has broken the contract, compensation for
the any kind of loss or damage if is caused thereby, which naturally arose in the usual
course of things from such breach and negligence.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

2. Whether negligence and breach of contract is applied?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

3. Whether the Authority of Pinnel’s Case (1602) is applied correctly?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RON V. HARRY

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

➢ Dismiss this writ petition.

➢ Declare the cancellation of judgement of lower court.

➢ There is no expediency to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case.

➢ Declare the cancellation of amount Rs. 3,00,000 to the Appellant.

➢ Declare the cancellation of interests of the past few months.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

Place: Bangalore.
Date: 14/03/2022

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT