1|Page

Team Code: - IUJ09

2nd INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022

BEFORE
THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Shekhawat Petitioner
VS.
Shrikant Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………….3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDRICTION…………………………………………………….5

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………….6

5. ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………….7

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………8

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………9-12

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………13

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

3|Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS MEANING
CPC Civil Procedure Code
UP Uttar Pradesh
ER Excerpts of Record
v. Versus
& And
Hon’ble Honorable
ICA Indian Contract Act
Sec. Section
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
i.e., That is
Rs. Rupees

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

4|Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

1. Gibbons v. Proctor (1891) 64 LT 594

2. Williams v. Crawardine (1833) 4 Barnewall and Adolphus 621; 110 ER 590
3. M/S Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar V/S Union of India A.I.R 2006 S.C. 2331
4. Caddar Mal V. Tata Industrial Bank, Ltd., Bombay, AIR 1927 All 407

BOOKS:

1.Contract-1 (by DR. R.K. BANGIA)

2.Indian Contract Act,1872 (Bare Act)
3.Law of Contract (by Avtar Singh)
4.Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (Bare Act)

SEARCH ENGINES:
1.Legalserviceindia.com
2.Bnblegal.com
3.Lawnn.com
4.Breeezetechnologies.de
5.National Park Service
6.Indian Kanoon

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

5|Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDRICTION

The petitioner of this instant case has approached this Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. As per
Section 9 of the CPC 1908, all courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless the
jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The petitioner humbly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad; this
Court has exclusive to entertain these petitions.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

6|Page

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1) Shrikant was a rich businessman living in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. His Nephew, Himmat, who was
in Class Xth studying in Modern Public School, Kanpur used to live with him in his home.
2) Himmat was not good in academics and Shrikant used to scold him for that. One day Shrikant
made a promise to Himmat that if he is going to secure a good position in the board exam, he will
purchase a Mercedes Benz to him.
3) Basing on the promise, Himmat studied day and night for his exam and was finally able to
secure 2nd position in the state of UP. He happily asked Shrikant to purchase the Mercedes Benz
as promised.
4) However, Shrikant said that he has not entered into any contract with Himmat as there was no
intention to enter into contract.
5) Knowing about this, Himmat became very upset and decided to leave the house of Shrikant. In
the night of 5th July 2020, he left the house without informing Himmat.
6) The next day in the morning, Shrikant came to know about the absence of Himmat. He asked
all his servants to search Himmat but he was nowhere found. He asked one of his old servants
named Shekhawat to go and search for Himmat.
7) Shekhawat went to railway station and had got information that Himmat has booked a railway
ticket to Badrinath and has left for Haridwar on 6th July, 2020 morning. Shekhawat took the
permission from Shrikant and Shrikant gave him some money for his railway fare and other
expenses and finally Shekhawat left for Badrinath.
8) Meanwhile, Shrikant, being an influential businessman issued handbills on 8th July 2021
announcing that if anyone who finds his nephew and brings him back then he would be awarded
with Rs. 50000. Shekhawat had no notice about this award
9) Shekhawat traces Himmat in Kedarnath and bring him back to Agra. Shekhawat was awarded
with Rs. 5000. Shekhawat was unaware of the award of the announcement of award of Rs. 50000
continues his work.
10) Five months later, after becoming aware of the reward he claimed money from Shrikant to
which Shrikant refused.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

7|Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:
Whether petitioner is entitled to receive the reward money?

ISSUE 2:
Whether there was an element of acceptance between the Shrikant and Shekhawat?

ISSUE 3:
Whether there is a valid contract?

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

8|Page

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1: Whether petitioner is entitled to receive the reward money?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner was entitled to receive money
because petitioner had performed the task which was assigned to him efficiently and that he should
be rewarded for that. Also, he performing his part which was the essential element in order to claim
the reward money.

ISSUE 2: Whether there was an element of acceptance between the Shrikant and
Shekhawat?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there was an element of acceptance between
the Shekhawat and Shrikant. The conduct of finding Shrikant's nephew by Shekhawat amounted
to implied acceptance of the terms of the contract. When Shrikant offered that whosoever finds his
nephew would get Rs. 50,000, he made a general offer to public. Whosoever does the required act
is supposed to be accepting that offer and the reward money must be provided to him. In this case,
Shekhawat accepted the general offer given by Shrikant.

ISSUE 3: Whether there is a valid contract?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is a valid contract existing between
Shrikant and Shekhawat. Shrikant made a general offer that whosever finds his nephew Himmat
would get a reward of Rs.50000 and by finding his nephew, Shekhawat made an acceptance to the
offer by his conduct. Hence, contractual obligation arisen between shekhwat and Shrikant and they
must fulfill obligation on their part. On the part of Shekhawat, he fulfilled his obligation by finding
his nephew and hence, he must be given the reward money.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

9|Page

ARGUMENT ADVANCED:

ISSUE 1: Whether petitioner is entitled to receive the reward money?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the plaintiff i.e., Shekhawat was entitled to
receive the money on the following grounds:

• The plaintiff had performed the task which was assigned to him efficiently and that he
should be rewarded for that. The plaintiff performing his part was the essential element in
order to claim the reward and that he did not have to know about the announcement for the
contract to exist.
• In the case of Gibbons v. Proctor1, the Superintendent of Police announced that anyone
who gave him valid information about the whereabouts of a criminal will be rewarded. A
police officer who was in search of this criminal, he did not know about this reward but
nevertheless provided some useful information on the whereabouts of the criminal. He then
came to know about the reward which was offered and thus claimed it. This case set a
precedent and went down as a landmark judgement as this proved that an offer can be
accepted even when one of the parties is not aware of it.
• Also, In the case of Williams v. Crawardine2, it was also re-established that the
knowledge of an offer is not necessary for its acceptance.
• Also, Section 8 of ICA3 which states that “Acceptance by performing conditions, or
receiving consideration. —Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance
of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an
acceptance of the proposal. —Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the
acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a
proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.”.

1
(1891) 64 LT 594

2
(1833) 4 Barnewall and Adolphus 621; 110 ER 590
3
(1872) Indian Contract Act

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

10|Page

• This necessarily means that if one part of the contract performs his/her part of the contract
then it automatically means that the offer is accepted.
• The plaintiff Shekhawat finding the missing boy was sufficient enough for him to be
entitled to the reward. Since according to Shrikant’s condition whoever found the lost boy
and brought him back would get the reward. Therefore, as per the condition of the
defendant, the plaintiff had traced the boy and brought him back. So, plaintiff is entitled to
receive the reward.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

11|Page

ISSUE 2: Whether there was an element of acceptance between the Shrikant and
Shekhawat?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there was an element of acceptance between
the Shekhawat and Shrikant. The conduct of finding Shrikant's nephew by Shekhawat amounted
to implied acceptance of the terms of the contract. When Shrikant offered that whosoever finds his
nephew would get Rupees 50,000, he made a general offer to public. Whosoever does the required
act is supposed to be accepting that offer and the reward money must be provided to him. In this
case, Shekhawat accepted the general offer given by Shrikant.

• Sections. 7 to 9 of the Contract Act are material on this point. Sec. 7 provides that, “In
order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified
and be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the
manner in which it is to be accepted”. Sec. 9 lays down that, 'In so far as the proposal or
acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. In so far as
such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be
implied. The Contract Act thus recognises both express and implied acceptance of a
proposal. Implied acceptance is when acceptance of a proposal is not made in words.
Section 8 of the Contract Act is an illustration of an implied acceptance of a proposal. The
word 'implied' has not been used in Sec. 8 but as acceptance is not made in words, but by
an act, Sec. 8 can be deemed to lay down instances of implied acceptance of a proposal.

• The wording of Sec. 8 further makes it clear that the provisions contained therein are not
exhaustive but are illustrative. An implied acceptance of a proposal can thus be in a form
other than those contemplated by Sections 7 and 8 of the Contract Act. The existence of
other forms of implied acceptance of a proposal was recognized in Caddar Mal V. Tata
Industrial Bank, Ltd., Bombay, AIR 1927 All 407, where Ashworth, J., added one more
instance of an implied acceptance of a proposal based on trade or mercantile usage or local
usage. In fact, this was regarded to be a case where the promise by the promisee was not
made either expressly or impliedly. It can thus be laid down as a well-established rule that
acceptance of a proposal in a form not strictly covered by Sections. 7 and 8 of the Contract
Act is permissible and such an implied acceptance shall render the transaction into a valid
and enforceable contract.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

12|Page

ISSUE 3: Whether there is a valid contract?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is a valid contract existing between
Shrikant and Shekhawat. Shrikant made a general offer that whosever finds his nephew Himmat
would get a reward of Rs.50000 and by finding his nephew, Shekhawat made an acceptance to the
offer by his conduct. Hence, contractual obligation arisen between shekhwat and Shrikant and they
must fulfill obligation on their part. On the part of Shekhawat, he fulfilled his obligation by finding
his nephew and hence, he must be given the reward money.
• In The Case of M/S Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar V/S Union Of India, Section 8 of the
Contract Act provides for acceptance by performing conditions of a proposal. In the instant
case, the Railways made an offer to the appellant laying down the condition that if the offer
was not acceptable the cheque should be returned forthwith, failing which it would be
deemed that the appellant accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of its claim. This
was further clarified by providing that the retention of the cheque and/or encashment
thereof will automatically amount to satisfaction in full and final settlement of the claim.
Thus, if the appellant accepted the cheques and encased them without anything more, it
would amount to an acceptance of the offer made in the letters of the Railways dated 7-4-
1993. The offer prescribed the mode of acceptance, and by conduct the appellant must be
held to have accepted the offer and, therefore, could not make a claim later. However, if
the appellant had not encased the cheques and protested to the Railways calling upon them
to pay the balance amount, and expressed its inability to accept the cheques remitted to it,
the controversy would have acquired a different complexion. In that event, in view of the
express non-acceptance of the offer, the appellant could not be presumed to have accepted
the offer. What, however, is significant is that the protest and non-acceptance must be
conveyed before the cheques are encased. If the cheques are encased without protest, then
it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted. An "offeree” cannot be
permitted to change his mind after the unequivocal acceptance of the offer.

• It is well settled that an offer may be accepted by conduct. But conduct would only amount
to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the act with the intention (actual or apparent)
of accepting the offer. The decisions which we have noticed above also proceed on this
principle. Each case must rest on its own facts. The courts must examine the evidence to
find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of the “offeree” was
such as amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made. If the facts of the case
disclose that there was no reservation in signifying acceptance by conduct, it must follow
that the offer has been accepted by conduct. On the other hand, if the evidence discloses
that the "offeree” had reservation in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to
acceptance of the offer in terms of Section 8 of the Contract Act.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -

13|Page

PRAYER

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

Find that:
1. There is a valid contract.
2. There is need to pay 50000 to the petitioner.
3. There is need to compensate the petitioner.
And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER -