ISSUES TO BE ARGUED UPON

WHETHER THE SUIT FIELD BY MR.VERMA IS MAINTAINABLE ?

By the side of Mr. Verma
• My Lordship Council seeks permission. To begin with the issue to argue upon point #1. on
Behalf. of the applicant.
• My lordship the suit field by my applicant [Mr. Vijay Varma ] is maintainable as per the
[section 73 of Indian contract act 1872] which states that “when a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive compensation, 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”
• My applicant Mr. Vijay Varma is a traditional retailer of garments and to raise his business ,
Mr. Vijay Verma established a contract with kaprabecho wholesale retail company but Mr.
Verma is not familiarize with technology so Mr. Vijay Varma's son Manish Varma [minor 17
years] use to placed the online order on e-commerce kaprabecho on the “2nd of
September 2023 Manish Varma placed a sizable order for garments[lawful objected]
amounting to a value of “rs.24000”[consideration.] with the use of the online payment app
“who-pay app” and got the confirmation text message of successful placement of the
order with the estimated delivery timeline of 15 days[electronic record] , and as per the
timeline of 15 days mentioned in the message the last delivery date was 16 th September]
but 24 hour [15th September] before the delivery date respondent [kaprabecho wholesale
retail company] has filled to performed the contract form there part by saying that a
disastrous and unrivaled flood occurred and damage complete obliteration of Karabachos's
primary warehouse [a pivotal center for their operations] so they have not performed
there part of contract due to this Mr. Vijay Varma and these son Manish Varma is in a deep
state of distress and forced into arrears financial loss
• Therefore, my Lordship counseled on the behalf of applicant. Has filed the suit. Before the
court for carefully prays for damages and compensation form kaprabecho

Form kaprabecho side

• My lordship the suit file by my learner council on behalf of their applicant is not
maintainable due to the contract was enter with the minor under section and the
maintainable of the contract is governed by the traditional way which say a contract
cannot be enter with the minor
 • There is no breach of contract from the respondent side because the contract was not
completed due to force majeure section 56 (doctrine of frustration) which exclude my
responded from any liability
• Lack of Negligence: The defendant had no control over the natural disaster that struck its
primary warehouse, which serves as a crucial operational center. The flood was an act of
God and, as such, was beyond our control or anticipation. We took all reasonable
precautions but could not have foreseen or prevented this disaster
• my Lordship, the defendant, Kaprabecho Wholesale Retail Company, respectfully asserts
that the force majeure clause, timely communication, lack of negligence, and the absence
of a breach of contract clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff's claim for damages and
compensation is not maintainable in this case.

Is the e- contract made between the parties valid?

By the side of Mr. Verma
• My lordship in India the e contract validity is governed under traditional Indian contract act
of 1872 it is said that if the contract insurance all the essential elements which are
mentioned in Indian contract act 1872 section then it is a valid in contract I therefore the
contract made by Manish Verma is valid because it has consideration legal and lawful
object offer and acceptance and capacity to the contract free concerned intention to
create a legal relationship
• And section of information technology act governs the mean of electronic validity
• Consumer Protection Laws: It should be emphasized that Mr. Vijay Verma is a long-
established retailer of garments, indicating that he has a reasonable level of experience in
commercial transactions. However, if any consumer protection laws apply, it can be argued
that these laws should protect Mr. Vijay Verma and his son as consumers in this context
• Clear Offer and Acceptance: The initial order placement by Manish Verma on Karabachos
website can be viewed as a clear offer to purchase garments. This offer was subsequently
accepted by KapraBecho through the confirmation text message, which affirmed the
successful placement of the order. The electronic trail of the transaction supports the
existence of an offer and acceptance, a fundamental requirement for a valid contract
• Authentication and Digital Signatures: To further establish the validity of the contract, it
can be argued that the use of the 'Who-Pay App' for payment implies authentication. The
payment process through a trusted mobile payment service likely involves identity
verification and digital signatures, strengthening the contract's authenticity
• Clear Online Transaction: Manish Verma, acting on behalf of his father, placed a
substantial order for garments on Karabachos website. This transaction was carried out
voluntarily, indicating a clear intention to engage in a commercial contract
• Payment Confirmation: After Manish executed the payment using the 'Who-Pay App,' he
received a confirmation text message affirming the successful placement of the order. This
 confirmation demonstrates that the transaction was completed according to the terms and
conditions presented on the website.
• Section 4 IT ACT PROVIDES FOR LEGAL REOGNITION of electronic record (message by WHO
Pay app.)
Form kaprabecho side
• Manish varma is a minor so This is gonna be a valid. Contract as per the traditional contract
Act. Under section.
• It is a B2B contract, so the contract should be done with the. Vijay Varma, not Manish
Varma.
• Manish Verma had pay the transaction. So according to. This Manish Varma has authority
in the contract. By his act he is an authority. But as per the. Indian Contract Act.
• If a contract was between Mr. Verma and Kapra bicho.com, then by which authority
Manish Varma? Has done the transaction.
• If you order something from ecommerce platform, they Delivering goods to you, but the
transaction amount was paid by your relative then that doesn't make your relative the
party to the contract. The contract is between you and the e-commers