STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble court under section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 in form of a civil application in civil court.

Section 9 of CPC- Courts to try all civil suits unless barred- The courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except suits of
which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation 1- As suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of

civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions
as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation 2- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation 1 or whether or not such office is attached to
a particular place.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rajat Malhotra and Suresh K. Gupta were long standing acquaintances who regularly
had business dealings with one another.
2. On 1st November 2022, Rajat Malhotra offered to sell his customized Grand Vitara
motor car to Suresh K. Gupta for Rs.12 lakh, a proposal was sent by him for the same
via post to the home address of Suresh K. Gupta at Chandigarh, which was to remain
open until 5th November, 2022.
3. Suresh k. Gupta received the proposal on 2nd November 2022 and left Chandigarh on
a business trip to bangalore.
4. On 2nd November 2022, Rajat Malhotra sold the car to Kamal and posted a revocation
of offer to Suresh k. Gupta at his chandigarh address which was received on 3rd
November 2022.
5. On 4th novemeber 2022, Suresh k. Gupta posted a letter of acceptance to Rajat
Malhotra at his business address at Delhi.
6. letter of acceptance got delivered on 5th November but was read by Rajat Malhotra on
6th November.
7. On 7th Novembe 2022, Suresh k. Gupta returned home and read the letter of
revocation.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE COMMUNICATED BY THE

PLAINTIFF WAS A VALID AS PER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872?

2. WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER BY THE DEFENDANT WAS

VALID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?

3. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND WHETHER IT WAS BREACHED?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE COMMUNICATED BY THE PLAINTIFF

WAS A VALID AS PER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the acceptance communicated by
the plaintiff is a valid acceptance under section 4 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 as it
was well within the time period prescribed in proposal of defendant and it was sent to
the true address of defendant.

2. WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER BY THE DEFENDANT WAS

VALID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the revocation of offer is not
valid as the communication of revocation is not complete under section 4 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.

3. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND WHETHER IT WAS BREACHED?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there was a breach of contract on
the behalf of defendant as the contract is validly formed and the plaintiff is ready and
willing to perform his part but the defendant has revoked the contract against the
provisions of The Indian Contract Act,1872.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE COMMUNICATED BY THE

PLAINTIFF WAS A VALID AS PER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872?
Section 2(b) of the Indian contract act states “When the person to whom the
proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted.
Proposal when accepted becomes a promise.”
For a valid contract, the acceptance must be communicated and furthermore such
communication must be made towards the offerer.
In the given case, the plaintiff’s acceptance is validly communicated to the
defendant as per section 4 of the Indian Contract Act,1872. Section 4 of the Indian
Contract Act is iterated as follows-
The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of
the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete,
—
a. as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so
as to be out of the power of the acceptor;
b. as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.