VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

VSLLS

LR & MOOT COURT AND LAW OF CONTRACTS –II

BEFORE

DISTRICT COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE,DELHI

KARAN ……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ARJUN …………………………………………………DEFENDANT

CASE CONCERNING WITH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND RELATED

ISSUES

SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE DISTRICT COURT

MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

0
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Index of Authorities...................................................................................... 2

2. Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................... 4

3. Statement of Facts......................................................................................... 5

4. Issues raised................................................................................................... 7

5. Summary of Arguments................................................................................ 8

6. Arguments Advanced.................................................................................... 10

7. Prayer for relief.............................................................................................. 17

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Precedents:-

Weeks V. Tybald
Carlil V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Harbhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal
Hadley V. Baxendale
Hinde V. Lidell
Hochester V. De La Tour

Statues:-
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Specific relief Act, 1963

Books:-
The Indian Contract Act by Sir Dinshaw F. Mulla (Lexis Nexis)
Contract and Specific relief by Avtar Singh (EBC publication)
Indian Contract Act by Dr. R.K. Bangia (Allahabad law agency)

2
Websites:-
SCC Online.com
Lawplanet.com
Casemine.com
IndianKanoon.com

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the suit filed before this Honorable Court.
The suit concerning “breach of contract and related issues” is filed in the Court before the Civil
Judge in accordance with the section 6, section 9 and section 20 of the Civil Procedural Code,
the court has the jurisdiction to decide all the matters referred to it for decision. Both the parties
shall accept the Court’s decision as final and binding and execute in good faith.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Arjun, a resident of India bought few boxes of Lindt Chocolates from Switzerland and
decided to put them on sale at Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- by means of an
advertisement in a local newspaper of Delhi.

2) In the advertisement, he stated that there are only 100 boxes available and will be sold on
first come first basis and anyone interested in buying may email him at his email id,
cooldude@farzi.com or visit his shop at Chor Bazar.

3) The advertisement appeared in the local newspaper on Sunday dated 07.05.2023 and
Karan saw the advertisement at 06:00 PM on same day and immediately mailed to Arjun
placing an order for 10 boxes of those chocolates.

4) Email was received by Arjun at 06:05 PM on Sunday. After receiving the email, he
realized that the discount offered by him was much higher and he was not making any
profit but had to suffer losses. So, on the next morning (Monday), he called the
newspaper company and asked them to issue another advertisement informing people that
the discount is no longer available.

5
5) It was published at 10:00 AM on Monday morning and delivered to Karan at 10:00 AM.
While Arjun reads the email at 10:45 AM and refuses to sell him the chocolates stating
that the discount is no longer available.

6) On this refusal, Karan filed a case in Civil Court for Breach of Contract and sought
damages to the tune of double the actual prices of chocolates ordered.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) Whether there was a contract between Karan and Arjun, as per Indian Contract Act,
1872?
-By Kirti Siwan, 14317703822, II-C

2) Whether there was a breach of Contract by Arjun?

-By Sangyan Goel, 14417703822, II-C

3) Whether Karan is entitled for the relief of damages, as prayed for, to the tune of double
the actual prices of chocolates ordered?
-By Arindam Prakash, 14517703822, II-C

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) Whether there was a contract between Karan and Arjun, as per Indian
Contract Act,1872?

Karan entered into a valid contract to purchase the 10 boxes of Lindt chocolates from
Arjun on a said price of Rs. 1000/-. According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract
Act,1872 all the conditions were fulfilled which are essential for a valid contract. There
was an agreement including a valid offer, acceptance and consideration moving from
both sides which leads to the formation of a valid contract.

(Kirti)

2) Whether there was a breach of contract by Arjun?

8
 Karan and Arjun were party to a Contract as established. Arjun placed an advertisement
and Karan saw the advertisement and sent an email to place an order. As there was no
revocation of offer nor communication of revocation of offer in the stipulated time as
mentioned in the Section 4 of Indian contract act, 1872, there was a breach of contract.
Arjun is in a material breach of the contract by refusing to deliver the goods promised.
According to section 74 and section 75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a breach has
happened and Damages must be paid. According to section 57 of the sale of goods act,
1930, the seller is liable to pay damages to the buyer if the former neglects or refuses
delivery of the goods.

(Sangyan)

3) Whether Karan is entitled for the relief of damages, as prayed for, to the tune
of double the actual prices of chocolates ordered?

As both the parties have entered into the contract in actual terms both, the breach of
contract should give legal right to the plaintiff to get remedies for damages caused due to
the breach of contract.

As per sec 73 of the Indian contract act the plaintiff gets such rights and should be
removed to such a situation same as if the contract was performed.

Apart from the Indian contract act 1872, in Sales of goods act 1930 under sections 57,58,
and 60 plaintiff again gets such rights get compensation.

The account of double the price of the actual price of chocolate price as damages is
because of the market price difference of chocolate at the date of the breach of contract
and the price mentioned in the contract. Along with that plaintiff incurred monetary loss
for filing the legal suit and traveling expenses.

9
 (Arindam)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) Whether there was a contract between Karan and Arjun, as per Indian
Contract Act, 1872?

The Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act,1872 provides the definition of proposal or
an offer which is the first step to make an agreement. The section states that:

“When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing
anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he
is set to make a proposal.”

In the present case, the Defendant, by publishing an advertisement in the local

newspaper expresses his willingness to obtain the assent of other and to enter into an
agreement.

10
Here, the advertisement published in the newspaper is a General Offer which means
that the offer was open for the public at large and whoever accepts it, is bound to the
terms and conditions.

In the case, Weeks v. Tybald it was held that “an offer may be made to the world at
large, but not with all the world. The contract is made only with that person who comes
forward and performs the conditions of the proposal.”

In the landmark judgement of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [(1893) 1 QB 256] it
was held that “the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to all the world but to those
who perform the specific terms.” Therefore, the required conditions to make an
advertisement an Offer are:

1. It must include definite terms

2. It should target specific person or limited group

3. The circumstances of the publications make it clear that the

advertiser intend to offer a contract.

In Harbhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal the same thing was held.

Therefore, here the Defendant, when published the advertisement with definite terms
which included the quotation of the price, particular mode for placing order and made to
a limited group i.e., first come first serve basis. He made a valid offer.

11
 To make a valid agreement, acceptance of the offer is an essential condition. Section 8
of the Indian Contract Act,1872 provides the acceptance by performing conditions,
which says:

“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.”

When the Plaintiff agreed to the terms and conditions of the offer signifying his assent
to enter into an agreement and placed the order for buying the chocolates by emailing to
the Defendant, he accepted the offer. The acceptance was communicated to the
Defendant when the e-mail was put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the
power of the plaintiff. This rule is defined under Section 4 of the Indian Contract
Act,1872. Therefore, it makes the defendant bound to the agreement.

The Section 10 of the Indian contract act,1872 provides that:

“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not
hereby expressly declared to be void.”

According to it, for a valid contract all these conditions are to be fulfilled. In this case,
all the pre-requisites are fulfilled and therefore, giving rise to a valid contract.

2) Whether there was a breach of contract by Arjun?

12
In the Indian contract act, 1872, there are various statues provided at the expanse of the
promisor to revoke the offer before the offer is accepted, that is provided under section
4 of the act.

The communication of the revocation of offer was not made according to the section 4
and therefore non-deliver or refusal was not an option with the defendant. Even then,
the defendant refused delivery of the goods which is a clear breach of contract.

According to Section 57 of Sale of Goods Act,

“If the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the seller
is liable for breach of contract and is further liable to pay damages to the buyer.”

In Hadley v. Baxendale, 1854, breach of contract was established and the extent of
damages were laid down.

In Hinde v. Liddell, 1875, damages for the breach of contract of a sale of goods were
established.

In the landmark judgment in Hochester v De La tour, A breach of contract is marked by

the non performance of a material aspect of the contract which opens the window for
the aggrieved party to receives damages.

In the present scenario, Arjun has breached the contract by not performing his duty of
delivering the goods even after being in a contractual relationship with Karan. It has
been thoroughly investigated that there was indeed a breach of contract by Arjun.

13
3) Whether Karan is entitled to the relief of damages, as prayed for, to the
tune of double the actual prices of the chocolates ordered?

As per the facts of the cases, there was definitely a formation of a contract fulfilling the
essentials of a valid contract under a general offer and so was the presence of a breach
of such contract under section 39 of the Indian contract act. Therefore so far as damages
are concerned, they should also be provided as per section 73 of the Indian contract act.
The key principles of the section are based on the leading case Hadley v. Baxendale,
(1854). This case has laid down two rules: (1) General damages and (2) Special
damages (General damages are for the loss which arises naturally in the usual course of
things from the breach of contract. Special damages are for the loss which arises on
account of the special circumstances of the plaintiff) Special damages are not
recoverable unless special circumstances were made known to the defendant at the time
of the formation of the contract.

The facts were as follows: The plaintiff, an owner of a mill, delivered a broken
crankshaft to the defendant a common carrier to take to a manufacturer, to copy it and
make a new one. The carrier delayed delivery of the shaft beyond a reasonable time, as
a result of which the mill was idle for a longer period than it should have been
necessary. The plaintiff did not make known to the defendant carrier that delay would
result in a loss of profits. The Court said that the special circumstances of the case were
not made known to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not recover anything
for loss of profit due to the closure of the mill. In delivering judgment, Alderson J., laid
down the rule: “Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken,
the damages which the other party, ought to receive in the respect of such breach of
contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising
naturally.

Inferences from the section 73 can be stated as:

14
 1) The aggrieved party is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage caused to
him which naturally arose in the usual course of business 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) The aggrieved party is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a position as if
the contract had been performed.

3) Damages are compensatory and not penal.

4) The loss to be ascertained is the loss at the date of the breach of contract

5) In the case of a contract of sale, where the goods are available in the market, it is the
difference between the market price on the date of the breach and the contract price
which is the measure of damages.

Apart from the Indian contract act, of 1872, the Sales of goods act 1930 also emphasizes the
damages to be provided under sections 57, 58, and 60.

Sections of Sales of Goods Act 1930:

57. Damages for non-delivery.—Where the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the
goods to the buyer, the buyer may sue the seller for damages for non-delivery.

58. The section states that subject to the provision of Specific Relief Act 1877, if the contract is
breached, the Court may, on the request of the plaintiff (buyer) direct the seller to perform the
contract in a particular and specified manner.

15
60. Repudiation of the contract before the due date.—Where either party to a contract of sale
repudiates the contract before the date of delivery, the other may either treat the contract as
subsisting and wait till the date of delivery, or he may treat the contract as rescinded and sue for
damages for the breach.

As far as the matter regarding relief for double the tune of the price of chocolate is concerned,
the plaintiff suffered the damages amounting to the difference between the market price of the
chocolate and the price mentioned in the contract. Along with that plaintiff also suffered legal
damages on filing suit. The plaintiff also suffered legal damages from the traveling expenses to
the court for the breach of contract on the part of the defendant under Section 39 of the Indian
Contract Act 1872, the plaintiff claims damages under Section 73 of the Act.

Hence the plaintiff is entitled to double the tune of the chocolate price as damages for the breach
of contract by the defendant.

16
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly proved that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare
that:

a.) There has been a breach of contract and plaintiff must be compensated
Rs. 20,000

And/or pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the interest
of Justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the plaintiff as in duty bound shall forever pray.

17