ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN FAVOUR OF FAIRY LIGHTS PVT LTD

A.1 FAIRY LIGHTS PVT LTD IS NOT GUILTY OF ANY ACT AMOUNTING TO WRONGFUL ACT
UNDER TORT

1. Wrongful Act “The act complained of should, under the circumstances , be legally
wrongful as regards the party complaining; that is , it must pre judicially affect him in
some legal right; merely that it will , however directly , do him harm in his interest is
not enough.”1 As by fairy rights no Wrongful Act was committed under tort as Fairy
Lights didn’t breach the any legal rights of Blooming Flowers. An act can only be
tortious if it overruns legal right of another individual.

2. Damage suffered by plaintiff was not the outcome of Defendants Act - Damage in the
absolute terms means harm and loss suffered or assumed to be suffered by an
individual as an effect of some wrongful act of another. 2Here Fairy Rights didn’t
commit any act which would result in foreseeable damage to Blooming Flower as the
damage occurred due to the chemicals and not due to fire caused by wiring fault in
Fairy Lights Pvt.
3. Fairy Lights Pvt Ltd was not negligent in its conduct – According to Windfield,
“negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage,
undesired by the defendant to the complainant”.3 The three basic elements which are
needed to constitute tort of negligence are 1. A duty of care, 2. Breach of duty
resulting in damage, 3. Consequential damage.4 Since here in the case the foundation
in commercial properties of this type is often wired by the builders before the contract
of sale is completed, Fairy Lights Ltd. did not owe a duty of care to Blooming
Flowers. Regarding the repair obligation, nothing in the above situation 5suggests that
FLP fell short in its duty of care, leading to the damaged wire. In addition to the
aforementioned claims, the present act could not have been anticipated; hence the
prudent person test will not be able to foresee it.

1
Rogers v. Rajendro dutt, (1860) 8 MIA 103 (136) : 13 Moore PC 209
2
Winsmore v. Greenbank , (1750) Willes 577 (581)
3
Windfiled And Jolowicz Tort , 12th edition p.69
4
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel
5
Moot Problem
A.2. Strict Liability cannot be a constituent to the Fairy Lights

“Strict liability is when a person allows a dangerous substance in their land, and if it
escapes, causes harm to the surrounding people, then that person who brought the substance
is liable for the damage caused.”6 The justification for strict liability is that the acts falling
under its purview involve unusual risks to others in terms of the gravity or frequency of the
harm threatened.7

1. Zodiac Pvt Ltd maintained its container in a hazardous location; this constituted a
violation of reasonable care and carelessness that caused harm to the plaintiff's
plants. Hence, Fairy Lights in the pursuance of defence can’t be held liable. There
no escape of dangerous thing on behalf of FLP, The dangerous thing escaped was
held from the containers of ZLP.

A.3. Fairy Lights can uphold the theory of remoteness

If the consequences are too remote if a reasonable prudent person would not have foreseen
them the theory of remoteness is applied.8
1. Here in case of FLP the consequences of damage to BF are so remote that it would
an extensive approach to expect from a reasonable man to foresee it. ZPL here kept
the chemical container at risk and it is a very farfetched argument for FLP to
foresee the risk on the scenario. 9

6
Fletcher v. Ryland,(1866) LR 1 Ex 265,279
7
Fleming, torts, 6th edition , p. 302
8
* Mc Manus v. Beckam , (2002) 4 All ER 497,pp.512,513
9
Moot Problem , Line 8
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST FAIRY LIGHTS PVT LTD

A.1.FAIRLY LIGHTS PVT LTD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WRONGFUL ACT

1. “TO EVERY RIGHT THERE CORRESPONDS AN OBLIGATION OR DUTY. IF THE RIGHT IS
LEGAL , SO IS THE OBLIGATION; IF RIGHT IS CONTINGENT, IMAGINARY , OR MORAL ,SO IS THE
OBLIGATION.”10HERE IT WAS OBLIGATION OF THE ZLP TO TAKE CARE OF THE DESTRUCTION
CAUSED BY FIRE AND AFTERMATH OF IT .

2. FAIRLY LIGHTS WAS NEGLIGENT IN BREACH THE DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE FAIRY LIGHT
NEGLECTED TO MAINTAIN ITS WIRING, A FIRE BROKE OUT, DAMAGING PLAINTIFF AS WELL AS
ZODIAC'S PROPERTY AFTER IT WAS EXTINGUISHED. FAIRY. LIGHTS' RESPONSIBILITY IS
PRETTY OBVIOUS IN THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE CONTAINERS WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF
THE FIRE HAD NOT OCCURRED DUE TO CARELESSNESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. “ THE STANDARD
OF CARE REQUIRED IS A MATTER OF LAW AND DOES NOT VARY ACCORDING TO THE
INDIVIDUAL ALTHOUGH IT DOES VARY ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE.”11

A.2.. FAIRY LIGHT CAN’T TAKE THE DEFENCE OF ‘WRONGFUL ACT OF

THIRD PARTY’ OR ‘INEVITABLE ACT’

BECAUSE ACT OF FIRE CAUSED THE CONTAINER DAMAGE, CAUSING RUST TO DEVELOP FROM
THE WATER. 12
FAIRY LIGHT'S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE WIRING ON ITS FLOOR RATHER
THAN ANY INTERFERENCE OR WRONGDOING BY A THIRD PARTY WAS TO BLAME FOR ALL THE
DAMAGE.

10
Allen v. Flood,(1898) AC 1 , 29 : 77 LT 717
11
Bryan v. Moloney , (1995) 2 All ER 536 (PC)
12
Moot Problem , Line 6