R1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT OF FINISTAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE MATTER OF

-------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL APPEAL OF 2023

FILED UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

MR. A..........................................................................................................PLAINTIFF

V.

ABC PR COMPANY............................................................................RESPONDENT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

DISTRICT COURT OF XYZ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2

INDEX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................4
LEGISLATIONS, ORDIANCES, NOTIFICATIONS AND CIRCULARS.................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....................................................................................9

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A VALID CONTRACT?.........................10

A. By free consent of the parties, competent to contract.....................................10
B. For a lawful consideration...............................................................................11
C. With a lawful object.......................................................................................12
D. Not hereby expressly declared to be void......................................................13

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT MR. A IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BREACH OF

CONTRACT?....................................................................................................................13

A. Non-Releasement of apology on the part of Mr. A................................................13

B. Non-Adherence of company policies guarding public image of
MR.A......................................................................................................................14
C. ABC PR company is mandated to handle all public relations for Mr. A including his
public image............................................................................................................14
ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT COMPANY ABC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH
OF CONTRACT ?...............................................................................................................15
A. ABC Company helped Mr. A to establish and manage the public image................15
B. ABC Company put in guidelines guarding Mr. A which he violated.......................15
C. Company ABC is the sole authority to handle all issue pertaining to statements,
interviews, put out by Mr. A which authority was exploited by Mr. A....................16

PRAYER................................................................................................................................17
3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

V. Versus

i.e. That is

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

I.L.R INSTITUTE OF LAW&RESEARCH

AC APPEAL CASES

Cal CLIENT ACCESS LICENSE

Ltd. LIMITED
4

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Sr. Case Name Citation Page no.

no
1. Kedarnath Bhattacharji V. (1886) ILR 14 Cal 11
Gorie Mohommed , 64
2. Paytm V. Sonia Dhawan 2021 14

3. Lufthansa German Airlines V. 2020 15

Sangeeta Malik
4. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. AIR 1992 17
v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

FOREIGN CASES

Sr Case Name Citation Page no.

no.
1. Petelin V. Cullen (1975) 132 CLR 10
355
2. Tinsley V. Milligan (1994) 1 AC 340 12
3. Alliance Bank v Broom 1864 16
5

LEGISLATIONS, ORDIANCES, NOTIFICATIONS AND CIRCULARS

Sr no. Legislation

1. Companies Act, 2013

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872

3. The Constitution of India, 1950

4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel appearing for the respondents, in the most humble and respectful manner
possible, submit that the Hon’ble District Court of the State of XYZ has the requisite
jurisdiction to examine the civil suit filed under Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872,
as per Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

1) Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872:

1) Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract -When a contract has
been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who
has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew,
when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation
is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the
breach.
2) Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by
contract- When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has
not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the
same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it
and had broken his contract.

It is further submitted that all requirements concerning procedure have been tended to in the
prescribed manner. This memorial discusses the facts, issues and arguments advanced for
the present case.
7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE EVENT
Under the Companies Act (2013), ABC is a registered company that carries out Public
Relation and has celebrities as clients. In 2020, they took media influencers as clients to
establish and manage the Public Image of the artists and influencers. Mr. A, an influencer
with 50 million followers on Twitter and 65 million on Instagram, gained popularity during
COVID time with a huge surge in the number of followers. His blog ‘Desi Lifestyle’ teaches
and advices on how to live a healthy and decent lifestyle with minimal resources.
In December 2020, ABC Company approached Mr. A to become their client. Mr. A agreed
and both the Parties entered a contract on December 24th ,2020. Mr. A gained 50,000
followers almost bimonthly at an average and ABC Company gained commission and both
the parties were happy with the Contract.

2023
ABC Company booked Mr. A for an International event for January 27th, 2023 in Toronto,
Canada, where he made a joke about how NRIs have best of both the worlds. This led to the
cancellation of the next three lined-up sessions and Mr. A having to return to India without
taking any more sessions. However, he received widespread criticism and unfavourable
exposure on his Twitter and Instagram accounts, resulting in a major decrease in the number
of followers, which fell from 50 million to 10 million on Twitter and from 65 million to 15
million on Instagram. The numbers were dropping, and the unfourageable comments were on
the rise.
Mr. A reached out to ABC to handle the situation to regain his reputation, but they had
already asked him to release an apology and be ready to suffer a backlash. However, Mr. A
did not release either, nor did he better the situation in the interviews.
Mr. A agreed and went for an interview without any discussion with ABC or its
representative. Moreover, put out a statement during that interview, ‘This is all juvenile!
What I said was to highlight the success of NRIs rather than to pick on them. Whatever I said
is an absolute truth, there is nothing to be sorry about it.’
This interview had a devastating effect on Mr. A, and he lost 50% of his followers on both the
platforms. He lost many commercial deals, and product advertisement, hence suffered a huge
loss. Though, ABC Company faced resistance and hostility by Mr. A but asked him to be
patient and do as they advise him to, bring his success and reputation back.

THE AGGREMENT
First clause of the agreement accentuates that, that this contract is between Mr. A, a social
media influencer and ABC, a registered company under the Companies Act 2013 signed to
manage assignments, get assignments , help in reaping economic benefits, handle public
image for Mr. A and to help him in getting the best result out of his talent.
8

Second clause of the agreement authorises ABC to manage and book Mr. A for programmes,
sessions, events and promotions. This also entails managing Mr. A dates. ABC is also
authorised to manage Mr. A’s social media accounts and posts will be made only after proper
consultation with ABC Company.
Third clause of the agreement states that it respects artistic ideals and, as a result, creative
disagreements; artistic decisions will be addressed peacefully, and if an altercation occurs, a
democratic decision will be made. If there is an aesthetic disagreement between Mr. A and
the representative of ABC, a team of Senior level members from ABC and Mr. A will discuss
on the topic, and Mr. A will be required to follow the majority decision.
Forth clause of the agreement stresses that, ABC is obligated to handle all public relations for
Mr. A and therefore what is put on Instagram and Twitter will be vetted by the ABC official
who handles Mr. A prior to each posting.
Fifth clause of the agreement states, ABC has the exclusive authority to address any concerns
relating to Mr. A's comments and interviews, and ABC will do everything possible to
mitigate any damage.
Sixth clause of the agreement emphasize, in the event of a dispute, any party may seek
damages and compensation by bringing a complaint in a civil court within 30 days after the
incident. The contract can be cancelled by any party by giving the other party 90 days' notice.

RESULT
On the basis of this agreement, Mr. A filed a civil suit against ABC Company for breach of
contract failure. He argued that he never intended to offend anyone and that ABC did not
prioritise his benefits, leaving him to deal with the fallout from a misconstrued situation.
ABC responded by asserting breach of contract on Mr. A, citing his vehement refusal to obey
the clause requiring ABC clearance before agreeing to any interviews and his failure to follow
the advice of an ABC official about the publication of an apology.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues have been placed before the Hon’ble District Court of XYZ to
adjudicate upon:
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A VALID CONTRACT?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER OR NOT MR. A IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER OR NOT ABC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT?
9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:
WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A VALID CONTRACT?
The contract was valid under Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 as was by free
consent, with lawful consideration and object and was not hereby expressed as void.
A. By free consent of the parties, competent to contract
B. For a lawful consideration
C. With a lawful object
D .Not hereby expressly declared to be void

ISSUE 2:
WHETHER OR NOT MR. A IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?
Mr. A was responsible for breach of contract as he violated the provision of the contract.
As he did not release the apology and went to the interview without discussing with ABC
Company.
A. Non-Releasement of apology on the part of Mr. A
B. Non-Adherence of company policies guarding public image of MR.A.
C. ABC PR company is mandated to handle all public relations for Mr. A including his public
image.

ISSUE 3:
WHETHER OR NOT ABC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT?
ABC Company is not responsible for breach of contract as they followed all the
provisions of the contract.
A. ABC Company helped Mr. A to establish and manage the public image.
B. ABC Company put in guidelines guarding Mr. A which he violated
C. Company ABC is the sole authority to handle all issue pertaining to
statements, interviews, put out by Mr. A which authority was exploited by Mr. A.
10

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A VALID CONTRACT?

1. Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act (1872), states the words and expressions used
according to the senses provided in the context. Section 2(a)1 defines proposal as,
‘when a person (here ABC Company) expresses to another his readiness to perform or
refrain from doing something in order to get the other's consent to such act or
abstinence’. Section 2(b)2 talks about acceptance and promise as ‘when a person to
whom proposal is made (here Mr. A) signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is
accepted and becomes a promise’.
2. Section 2(d)3 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) states ‘when, at the desire of the
promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, as does
or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing, something, such act
or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise’. Also, Section 2(e) 4
of this act talks about an agreement where it says that every promise and every set of
promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement.
3. Section 2(h)5 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) act defines a valid contract as ‘An
agreement enforceable by law’.
4. Section 106 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) states ‘what agreements are contracts’ .

A. By free consent of the parties, competent to contract

5. For the free consent, the consent of the parties must be genuine which means that it
should be agreed upon something in the same sense i.e. there should be consensus-ad-
idem.
6. Free consent is defined under Section 147 of Indian Contract Act where it states that
consent is said to be free when it is not caused by –
1) Coercion as defined in Section 15,
2) Undue influence, as defined in Section 16,
3) Fraud, as defined in Section 17,
4) Misrepresentation as defined in Section 18
5) Mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22.
7. In the case of Petelin V. Cullen, (1975) 132 CLR 3558, Petelin owned land in
Liverpool and granted Cullen an option to purchase it. However, Cullen sent a letter
asking for an extension with $50 enclosed, which Petelin signed, but refused to sell
the land to Cullin.

1
Section 2(a) of Indian Contract Act, 1872
2
Section 2(b) of Indian Contract Act, 1872
3
Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872
4
Section 2(e) of Indian Contract Act, 1872
5
Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act, 1872
6
Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
7
Section 14 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
8
Petelin V. Cullen, (1975) 132 CLR 355
11

Petelin filed a non est factum plea (it is not my deed) to get out of the contract. This is
only available to a select class of people, and Petelin falls into that category due to his
inadequate command of the English language. Petelin had no notion he was giving
away his land and mistook the letter for something else different.He was influenced
by the agent, who was aware that he did not understand English and did not attempt to
explain it to him.Even if Cullen was uninformed of the agent's actions, it was his
fault.Petelin was not deemed reckless by the Supreme Court. He had every reason to
believe the agent, and investigating it himself would have been time-consuming and
difficult.
8. In the case Mr. A and ABC company, proper proposal, acceptance, communication
and consideration was involved and both the parties established free consent as
needed to enter into the contract (as per their free will). In December 2020, our client
ABC Company approached Mr. A to become their client as he gained popularity
during COVID time with a huge surge in the number of his followers. Our client
approached him to help him manage his assignments, get assignments and help in
reaping economic benefits and further his public relations and image. After carefully
reading and examining the contract, it was signed by M. A by his free will without
any undue pressure.
B. For a lawful consideration

9. Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act (1872) states ‘when, at the desire of the promisor
(here ABC Company), the promisee (here Mr. A) or any other person has done or
abstained from doing, as does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain
from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration
for the promise’.
10. In the Case of Kedarnath Bhattacharji V. Gorie Mohommed , (1886) ILR 14 Cal 649
the plaintiff was a municipal commissioner and one of the trustees of the Howrah city
council fund. After gaining enough membership to support the funds needed to build a
town hall, the commissioners made an agreement with the defendant to build one. The
plans and proposed structures for the same were submitted and passed, but the costs
increased due to expansion in membership list. The defendant agreed to pay 100/- for
the construction of the Town hall, which he later refused. The commissioner sued the
defendant for the same.
In this case people subscribing including the defendant knew the purpose for which
their money will be used and also were aware that on what account of their
subscription the plaintiff entered into a contract with them. The court held that even if
the defendant does not benefit from the promise he made; he is liable to pay. This
judgment reaffirmed the rule of law by stating that any act done at the will of the
promisor’s wish is taken as the fulfillment of consideration of a contract. This case
sets an example that once the promise is made, the promisor has to perform his duty
and cannot take it back. The consideration which is a very important element of a
contract, this case confirmed the importance of promise and consideration.
11. Section 23 of Indian Contract Act (1872) states every consideration as lawful unless-

9
Kedarnath Bhattacharji V. Gorie Mohommed , (1886) ILR 14 Cal 64
12

1) It is forbidden by law
2) Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law;
or is fraudulent
3) Involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the court
regards it as amoral, or opposed to public policy.
12. In this case, the contract was signed by Mr. A and our client ABC Company to
establish and manage the Public Image of Mr. A. our client was authorised to manage
and book programs, sessions, events and promotions and handle the social media
account/s of Mr. A. In turn our client received some commission from Mr. A which
showcases the consideration as Mr. A through his talent gained popularity and
company gained some benefits making both the parties happy.
13. For the Mr. A, consideration was the 50, 000 followers that he gained bimonthly at an
average due to the resources and services provided by our client after entering into the
contract.

C. A lawful Object

14. The object of agreement should be lawful and legal as two parties cannot enter into
an agreement to do a criminal act.
15. Section 2310 of Indian Contract (1872) states lawful object and consideration as lawful
, unless –
1) It is forbidden by law
2) Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or
is fraudulent
3) Involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the court regards
it as amoral, or opposed to public policy.
16. In case of Tinsley V. Milligan (1994) 1 AC 340 11 Ms Tinsley and Ms Milligan
purchased a property in which to cohabit as a couple and used it as a lodging house.
The parties agreed to be beneficial co-owners of the property, but it was registered in
Ms Tinslay's sole name so as to allow Ms Milligan to make fraudulent claims for
benefits with Ms Tinsley’s full knowledge and consent. The relationship broke down
and Ms Tinsley sought to evict Ms Milligan. Ms Milligan counterclaimed for a half
share in the property. Ms Tinsley argued that Ms Milligan should not be able to rely
on evidence of her unlawful conduct to establish a beneficial interest in the home,
while Ms Milligan argued that the equitable interest stemmed from her contribution to
the purchase price.
Ms Milligan was successful in establishing a joint equitable interest in the house. She
was able to prove the beneficial interest stemmed from her lawful contribution to the
purchase price, and not from the unlawful, fraudulent social security claim. There was
a clear, common understanding between the parties that they owned the property
jointly,

10
Section 23 of Indian Contract Act (1872)
11
Tinsley V. Milligan (1994) 1 AC 340
13

in equal shares. Thus, there agreement involved a lawful consideration and lawful
object at the time of buying the property together.
17. In this case, our client ABC Company approached Mr. A and influencers like him to
make an agreement which is not forbidden by law as aimed towards carrying out the
clients (artists and influencers) public relations and thus proves to be of nature which
neither defeat provisions of any law nor injures person or property of another and also
is not opposed to public policies.
18. Therefore, this agreement includes lawful consideration and object. This agreement
involves all the necessary terms as well as provides the provision to seek damages to
either parties and compensation after filling a suit in a civil court within a period of 30
days from the day of incident.
D. Not hereby expressly declared to be void

19. In this case both the parties, ABC Company and Mr. A had intention of establishing a
legal relationship as well as a commercial relationship which is based on economic
benefits.
20. In this case all the provision aimed towards showcasing a legally enforceable contract
with lawful objects and consideration in which both the parties were competent to
contract.
Thus, all the provisions of this contract is valid and follows all the principles needed to be
enforceable and not hereby expressely declared to be void.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT MR. A IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

BREACH OF CONTRACT?

21. A breach of contract12 is a violation of any of the agreed-upon terms and conditions of
a binding contract.
22. Section 7313 of Indian Contract Act (1872) states when a contract has been broken, the
party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken
the contract, compensation for any or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally
arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when
they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

A. Non-Releasement of apology on the part of Mr. A

23. Our client, ABC company prioritizing Mr. A’s interest and career sent him for an
international event where he recklessly made a joke regarding how NRIs have best of
both the worlds which costed him a huge backlash and negative publicity. Because of
this our client also suffered loss as his representative but despite of this they didn’t
leave Mr. A and assured him to re- establish his reputation when Mr. A reached out
for help.

12
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breach-of-contract.asp
13
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act (1872)
14

24. Our client asked Mr. A to apologize for his best as public apology could have helped.
By this, Mr. A violated the 3rd provision of the agreement which stated in case of
altercation, a democratic decision shall be adopted and situation shall be handled
amicably. And this non- compliance to provisions could constitute breach of contract
as whole.
25. The case of Paytm V. Sonia Dhawan (2021)14 highlights the importance of employers
having a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of their employment
contracts and taking appropriate action when employees breach those terms. It also
emphasizes the need for employees to abide by the terms of their contracts and to
avoid engaging in any illegal or unethical activities that may lead to
termination and legal consequences.
26. Thus, in the case of our client, Mr. A despite of entering into a contract with our client
violated the terms and conditions without fearing legal consequences.

B. Non-Adherence of company policies guarding public image of Mr .A

27. In this case, the agreement stated that our client ABC Company is mandated to handle
all public relations for Mr. A including his public image. Our client had the sole
authority to handle all issues pertaining to statements, interviews, put on by Mr. A. But
Mr. A exploited our authority, first by not releasing an apology and second by agreeing
for an interview on February 4th, 2023 without any discussion with our client ABC
Company or its representative.
28. On top the interview, yet he gave another controversial statement which had a
devastating effect on Mr. A and he lost 50% of his follower on both the platforms. This
recklessness not only bought Mr. A but also our client’s company suffered as his
representative. But despite all this my clients company tried to make continuous
efforts and asked Mr. A to be patient and advised him to do what our client’s company
says to get his success and reputation back. Then also, Mr. A alleged our client ABC
Company for breach of contract which is totally absurd.
29. Mr. A was obligated to do the things prevalent to his public image and public relation.
It is justified for ABC company to ask him to apologize and also Mr. A should have
consulted our client’s company before going for the interview and giving the
statement.

C. ABC PR company is mandated to handle all public relations for Mr. A

including his public image

30. Mr. A alleging my client of not putting his benefits at the forefront is wrong as our
client ABC company asked him to apologize which according to them was the best
solution to calm the situation at that time. And before our client could have made any
further efforts Mr. A made the situation worst through attending an interview and
giving another statement.

14
Paytm V. Sonia Dhawan (2021)
15

31. By doing this Mr A breached the contract as he violated the obligative provisions
which Mr. A was meant to follow.
32. The case of Lufthansa German Airlines V. Sangeeta Malik (2020) 15 emphasise that
before entering into contract it is important to read and understand the terms and
conditions to avoid any misunderstanding and non- adherence of its provisions in
future.
33. So, in our client’s case Mr. A cannot allege that he is not obligated to follow the orders
which is concerned with his public relations and public image.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT COMPANY ABC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

BREACH OF CONTRACT?
34. Section 73 of Indian Contract Act (1872) states when a contract has been broken, the
party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken
the contract, compensation for any or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally
arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when
they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
35. A contract is breached or broken when any of the parties fails or refuses to perform its
promise under the contract. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a
binding agreement is not honoured by one or more parties by non-performance of its
promise by him renders impossible.
36. Section 3716 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that the parties to the contract
are under obligation to perform or offer to perform, their respective promises under
the contract, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act or of any other law.
A. ABC Company helped Mr. A to establish and manage the public image

37. The contract authorised our client ABC Company, to manage and book Mr. A for
programs, events, sessions, and promotions to help him establish and manage his
public image and relations.
38. Our client ABC Company booked Mr. A for an international event, showcasing its
responsible efforts as Mr. A’s client. But it was crashed by Mr. A only as he delivered a
joke on NRIs which bought him huge backlash and negative publicity.
39. This shows that our client responsibly performed their job at time prioritizing Mr. A
career and interests . Thus, our client cannot be alleged for breach of contract.

B. ABC Company put in guidelines guarding Mr. A which he violated.

40. The agreement stated that in case of altercation, a democratic decision shall be
adopted and artistic decisions shall be handled amicably. But when our client ABC
Company tried to handle the situation of Mr. A by asking him to release an apology,
he rejected it. Thus, here it can be easily seen that ABC’s guidelines guarding Mr, A
was exploited by him.

15
Lufthansa German Airlines V. Sangeeta Malik (2020)
16
Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act (1872)
16

41. In the case, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1992) 17,
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (the plaintiff) entered into a contract with the State
of Jammu and Kashmir to construct a dam. The contract contained a clause that
required the plaintiff to obtain clearance from the Indian Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MOEF) before starting construction.
However, the plaintiff did not obtain the required clearance from MOEF and went
ahead with the construction. As a result, the state government terminated the contract
and forfeited the plaintiff's security deposit. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking to
recover the security deposit. The court held that the plaintiff was in breach of contract
by not obtaining the required clearance from MOEF, and as a result, the state
government was justified in terminating the contract and forfeiting the security
deposit. The court further held that the plaintiff could not claim damages or recovery
of the security deposit as it was responsible for the breach of contract. Therefore, the
case establishes the principle that a plaintiff who is responsible for breaching the
terms of a contract cannot claim damages or recovery of any security deposit or
advance payments made.
42. In our client’s case, our clients deserve to seek damage for the loss due to Mr. A
reckless behaviour throughout and violations of provisions of the agreement by him.

C. Company ABC is the sole authority to handle all issue pertaining to statements,
interviews, put out by Mr. A which authority was exploited by Mr. A

43. Our client ABC Company, had the sole authority to handle all issue pertaining to
statements, interviews, put out by Mr. A which authority was exploited by Mr. A.
44. Mr. A went to an interview without discussing with ABC Company and also gave
another statement which had a more devastating effect on his public image.
45. In case of Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)18, the defendant owed an unsecured debt to
the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs asked for some security, the defendant promised to
provide some goods but never produced them. When the plaintiffs tried to enforce the
agreement for the security, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs had not provided
any consideration. It was held that normally in such a case, the bank would promise
not to enforce the debt, but this was not done here. By not suing, however, the bank
had shown forbearance and this was valid consideration, so the agreement to provide
security was binding.
46. In this case despite of agreeing to all provisions of contract Mr. A failed to perform
them and ABC Company diligently performed it making Mr. A responsible for breach
of contract.
47. In this case both the parties were bonded to the contract’s provision which was
formed through legal consideration and lawful object. Therefore , as Mr. A failed to
follow the provision he is responsible for breach of contract not ABC PR Company.

17
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1992)
18
Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)
17

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly and respectfully prayed for this Hon’ble District Court of the State of XYZ
may be pleased to:

1. Declare the contract between Mr. A (plaintiff) and ABC Company (respondent) as
valid according to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. Declare and adjudicate that Mr. A is responsible for breach of contract under Section
73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as he did not complied with the provisions of the
contract and exploited the authority of ABC Company.
3. Declare and adjudicate that ABC is not responsible for breach of contract as
performed his duties provided under the contract. Thus, ABC Company is not liable to
compensate Mr. A for breach of contract under Section 73 of Indian Contract Act,
1872.

AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience.

For this Act of Kindness, the Respondents shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/--------------------------------
Counsel for the Respondents