Contentions:-

1. Whether the agreement to sell between Janki and amar was valid?
2. Whether or not a valid contract of guarantee was formed?
3. Whether Amar is liable for the compensation of the loss incurred by janki?

The Counsel seeks permission to approach the dice.

Much Obliged
Greetings to the honourable bench,
The Counsel for the Plaintiff in the case of Janki vs Amar and Another seeks permission to collectively address the bench as
Your Honors.
Much Obliged Your Honors

Your Honour, counsel shall be dealing with three contentions i.e Whether the agreement to sell between Janki and amar
was valid? Whether or not a valid contract of guarantee was formed?
Whether Amar is liable for the compensation of the loss incurred by janki?
And the counsel respectively reserves ___minutes of the Bench's time.
Much Obliged Your Honors.

The Counsel seeks permission to state the facts of the pertinent case.
Much Obliged Your Honors
Your Honor, this case centers on a contract dispute between Janki and Amar: Janki responded to an advertisement by
'Sugarplum Bakery' for a wheat supply tender and sent a Letter of Intent with her terms. On 15.12.2022, Amar accepted
Janki's bid for a 6-month wheat supply contract starting 15.01.2023, with a promise to provide surety within 15 days.
Amar later proposed Ramesh as the surety on 01.01.2023, which Janki accepted on 13.01.2023. . On 14.01.2023, Janki
delivered the wheat. However, she learned of Ramesh's insolvency on 14.01.2023 and promptly sent a revocation of
Ramesh's surety on 15.01.2023. Amar received Janki's acceptance on 16.01.2023, received the goods on at 11:30 p.m. and
on 17.01.2023, he learned of the revocation on the same day. Janki requested payment on 18.01.2023, but Amar declined.
Janki filed this suit against Amar for the outstanding payment, including Ramesh as a party."

Counsel seeks permission to state the jurisdiction of the pertinent case.

Your Honour,the Counsel has approached the Honorable District court under the section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872

The Counsel seeks permission to move further with the first contention.
Much Obliged Your Honors.

Contention1:-
 Your honor, this case revolves around a series of events that transpired between Janki and Amar, culminating in a
contractual relationship for the supply of wheat. It is crucial to understand the context and the sequence of events
leading to the agreement to sell.
 Your Honor, at the heart of any contract lies the fundamental principle of offer and acceptance. In this case, we have a
clear offer made by Janki when she sent the Letter of Intent expressing her interest and the terms & conditions for the
supply of wheat. Amar's acceptance of this offer on the same day was unequivocal. This offer and acceptance, in
themselves, constitute the hallmark of a valid contract as defined under Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
 the counsel would also like to highlight the fact that It is essential to underscore the mutual assent and meeting of the
minds between the parties. Both Janki and Amar entered into this agreement with the shared intention to be bound
by its terms, as mandated by Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Their consistent actions demonstrate that
they were in complete agreement regarding the terms and obligations outlined in the contract. M/S Dhodha House v.
 S.K. Maingi & Another (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that if a condition is not material to the
contract's essence, and its breach does not go to the root of the contract, the contract may still be valid. The court
emphasized the principle of "substantial performance" in contracts.
 Moreover, The condition of providing a surety for ensuring payment was explicitly included in the terms and
conditions communicated by Janki. It is crucial to note that Amar not only accepted this condition but also proposed
Ramesh as the surety, with Ramesh's consent. This demonstrates a mutual understanding of the importance of surety
in the transaction, in accordance with Section 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and reinforces the validity of the
contract.
 the counsel would also like to address that Janki performed her part of the contract by delivering the desired wheat
to Amar on 14.01.2023. This act of performance is a powerful confirmation of her intent to be bound by the
agreement, as contemplated under Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Amar, in turn, received the wheat and
utilized it, further affirming his acceptance of the contract.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. Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar
v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 311.
 your honour, while it is true that Janki's acceptance of Amar's letter proposing the surety was delayed beyond the
stipulated 15-day period, we contend that this does not render the contract void. Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, explicitly permits acceptance by conduct or performance of the conditions stipulated in the offer. In this case,
Janki's acceptance by performing her contractual obligations, such as delivering the wheat, is a valid mode of
acceptance under the Act. Even in the case of "Sumpter v. Hedges (1898): In this case, a builder agreed to construct a
house for the plaintiff, but the work was not completed by the specified date. The court held that even though the
builder had not fully complied with the contract's time frame, the contract was still valid, and the plaintiff was entitled
to damages for the delay.
 Lastly, your honour it is essential to emphasize that the court's role is to uphold contracts, not to undermine them.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, recognizes the importance of contract enforcement to maintain commercial
relationships and economic stability. In this case, there is a valid contract between the parties, and Amar has an
obligation to honor his commitment under that contract, in line with the principles established by the Act.

Contention-2-
 Your Honor, a valid contract of guarantee necessitates offer and acceptance, as delineated in Sections 2(a) and 7 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In this instance, Janki's offer to supply wheat, contingent upon the provision of a surety
for payment, constitutes the initial offer. Amar's acceptance of this offer by proposing Ramesh as the surety, with
Ramesh's consent, signifies the acceptance. This mutual exchange of promises embodies the formation of a valid
contract of guarantee.
 the counsel would also like to bring to the notice that Ramesh's role as a surety carries specific legal implications, as
defined in Sections 126 and 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These sections establish that Ramesh, as a surety,
undertook a secondary obligation to guarantee the payment for the wheat supplied by Janki. His consent and
willingness to act as a surety signify his intention to take on this legal responsibility.
 M/s. Sumitra Ginning and Oil Industries vs. P.R. Shah (1970): In this case, the defendant company had entered into a
contract for the supply of goods, and the defendant's director had provided a personal guarantee for payment. When
the company failed to make the payment for the goods supplied, the plaintiff sought recovery from the director-
surety. The court held that the director-surety was liable for the company's debt as per the terms of the personal
guarantee.

 therefore, your honour Under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Ramesh, as the surety, is liable to perform
the same obligation as the principal debtor (Amar) upon Amar's default. Section 139 reinforces the surety's liability,
stipulating that the surety's obligation remains intact even if the creditor (Janki) does not pursue the principal debtor.
These provisions clearly establish Ramesh's legal duty to ensure payment for the wheat supplied by Janki. Even in the
case of GAIL (India) Ltd. vs. East West Importers & Exporters (2003): the defendant company had entered into a
 contract to supply goods to GAIL. As part of the contract, a bank guarantee was furnished. When the defendant failed
to fulfill its obligations under the contract, GAIL invoked the bank guarantee. The court held that the bank was liable
to honor the bank guarantee as per the terms of the contract.
 Your Honor, considering the presence of offer and acceptance, Ramesh's explicit consent as a surety, performance,
compliance with statutory requirements, and the specific liability and legal duty of the surety under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, it is irrefutable that a valid contract of guarantee was formed. We respectfully request the court to
acknowledge the legitimacy of this contract and hold Ramesh liable for ensuring payment as per the terms of the
guarantee, thereby upholding justice and contractual obligations.

Contentions 3:-
 your honour, The crux of the matter before this esteemed court revolves around a critical question of liability—the
responsibility of the defendant, Amar, for compensating our plaintiff, Janki, for the losses she has incurred. We assert
that Amar is undeniably liable for the compensation of these losses.
 Your Honor, the foundation of Amar's liability lies in the existence of a valid contract between Janki and Amar. As
defined under Sections 2(h) and 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a valid contract exists when there is an offer,
acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. In this case, all these elements were present.
Janki offered to supply wheat, Amar accepted, consideration was exchanged, and both parties had the intention to be
legally bound. Therefore, Amar's liability arises from this valid contract.
 the counsel would like to also address that The essence of contract law is that parties must honor their obligations
under the contract. Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addresses the consequences of a party's breach of
contract. In this case, Amar failed to fulfill his contractual obligation to provide a surety for payment, resulting in a
breach of the contract. This breach directly led to the losses incurred by Janki, making Amar liable for the
compensation of these losses.
 Your Honor, contract law adheres to the fundamental principle that the first communication to reach its destination
should prevail. This principle was unequivocally upheld in the landmark case Bhagwandas goverdhandas kedia v.
Girdharilal parshottamdas and co. and others,1966.
 Your honour, In the case of Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) the defendants (Van Tienhoven) sent an offer to the
plaintiffs (Byrne) to sell them tin plates. The plaintiffs replied with an acceptance letter. However, before the plaintiffs'
acceptance letter was received, the defendants sent a revocation of their offer. The court held that the contract was
formed when the plaintiffs posted their acceptance, and the revocation was not effective until it was received.
Therefore, the contract was valid.
 As per contract law, when an offeror accepts an offer before receiving a revocation, a valid contract is formed. In this
case, Amar's acceptance of Janki's approval of Ramesh as the surety was first communicated, and thus, the contract
was already in effect.
 you honour, In light of the validly formed contract, Amar bore the obligation to fulfill the terms of the agreement,
which included payment for the wheat delivery. His refusal to pay for the delivered wheat, despite the binding
contract, constitutes a clear breach of contract. This breach, grounded in the contractual obligations established
under Sections 2(h) and 10 of the Indian Contract Act, places Amar squarely in the position of liability.
 hence your honour, amar is undeniably liable to compensate Janki for the wheat delivery as per the validly formed
contract. His refusal to fulfill this obligation constitutes not merely a breach of contract, but a breach of justice itself.

IF YOUR HONOURS ARE SATIDFIED AND HAVE NO FURTHER QUERIES, THE COUNSEL SEEKS PERMISSION TO STATE THE
PRAYER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT,

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels on the behalf of
plaintiff humbly pray before the honorable court to kindly adjudge and declare that:
1. the plaintiff, Janki, and the defendant, Amar, for the supply of wheat be recognized as a valid and enforceable contract,
notwithstanding the timing of acceptance and revocation.
2. Amar is liable for the compensation of the loss incurred by Janki due to his refusal to make payment for the delivered
wheat.
3. to uphold the validity of the contract of guarantee between Janki and Ramesh, as Amar's surety for payment.

And/ OR
Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of justice, equity and good conscience, and for this act
of kindness the counsels on the behalf of the plaintiffs, as in duty bound shall forever pray.