ISSUE 4: REHIN ENTERPRISES ACTED REASONABLY IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN

MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT TERMS PROPOSED BY AMIXENT CORPORATION,

CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THE DISRUPTIONS

The counsel humbly submits that the action taken by Rehin Enterprises in declining the
proposed modifications to the contract terms is reasonable. It is important to understand that
their decision was not arbitrary but grounded in specific circumstances surrounding the
contract's execution.

Firstly, let us turn our attention to the pivotal case of Taylor v. Caldwell. This landmark ruling
established that parties are released from fulfilling their obligations only if the contract
becomes impossible to perform due to events beyond their control. In essence, strict
adherence to the original contract terms is mandated unless genuine impossibility arises. Thus,
Rehin Enterprises was well within its rights to uphold the original terms absent such
impossibility.

Furthermore, the wisdom echoed in Winston Industries LLC v. Walmart Stores Inc. emphasizes
the duty of the party seeking relief to demonstrate reasonable efforts in mitigating the impact
of force majeure events. In the case at hand, it is evident that Amixent Corporation fell short in
fulfilling this obligation. They failed to exhibit substantial efforts to mitigate delays, rendering
their reliance on force majeure as a defense untenable.

Moreover, Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Infocom Technologies underscores the significance of

adhering to contractual deadlines unless explicit provisions for extensions are present. It is
crucial to note that the contract between Rehin Enterprises and Amixent Corporation did not
contain provisions allowing for modifications to delivery timelines. Consequently, any requests
for such modifications must be deemed invalid.

In summary, we assert that Rehin Enterprises acted prudently and within the bounds of reason
in denying the requested modifications to the contract. The burden falls upon Amixent
Corporation to fulfill its contractual obligations as originally agreed upon. We urge this
honorable court to consider the legal precedents and the facts presented and to uphold the
integrity of contract law.

BRIEF SUMMARIES OF EACH CASE:

Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) [England]: The case involved a contract for renting out a music hall,
which was destroyed by fire before the event was scheduled to take place. The Court ruled that
the contract was discharged due to the impossibility of performance caused by the fire.

Winston Industries LLC v. Walmart Stores Inc. (2007) [USA]: This case involved a dispute arising
from a supply contract between Winston Industries and Walmart Stores. Winston Industries
argued that it could not fulfill its obligations due to a force majeure event (a hurricane).
However, the Court emphasized that the party seeking relief must demonstrate that reasonable
efforts were made to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event. The case underscored the
importance of proactive measures to minimize disruptions caused by unforeseen
circumstances.

Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Infocom Technologies (2015) [Delhi High Court]: The case
involved a contract for the delivery of telecommunications equipment, where the supplier
failed to meet the agreed-upon deadlines. The Court held that parties must comply with
contractual timelines unless there are specific provisions allowing for extensions, highlighting
the limitations on modifications to contract terms in the absence of such provisions.
ISSUE 5: AMIXENT CORPORATION SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABSOLVED OF LIABILITY
DUE TO THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OR IMPOSSIBILITY

The counsel humbly submits that Amixent Corporation should be held liable for damages
resulting from the termination of the contract, and they should not be absolved of liability due
to the doctrine of frustration or impossibility. While we acknowledge the challenges brought
about by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to recognize that these circumstances do not
grant absolute immunity from contractual responsibilities.

The doctrine of frustration serves as a basis for discharge of contractual obligations only when
performance becomes truly impossible or radically different from what was initially intended.
However, the threshold for establishing frustration is high, making it necessary that the
impossibility of performance must be unforeseeable and beyond the control of the parties
involved.

In the case at hand, while the disruptions caused by the pandemic were unforeseen and
beyond Amixent Corporation's immediate control, we must scrutinize whether the corporation
took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of these disruptions and fulfill its contractual
duties to the best of its ability. Merely because performance became more challenging or
economically burdensome due to the pandemic does not automatically constitute frustration
under the law. As established by the Supreme Court in the Energy Watchdog Case, frustration
must render performance fundamentally impossible, rather than merely inconvenient or
costly.

Furthermore, the Indian Contract Act provides principles governing the allocation of liability in
cases of contract breach. Section 73 of the Act stipulates that the party suffering from the
breach is entitled to receive compensation from the party who has breached the contract.
Parties are also expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages suffered.
By failing to deliver the contracted supplies within the stipulated time period, Amixent
Corporation committed a clear breach of contract, leading to the termination of the agreement
by Rehin Enterprises as per their rights under the Indian Contract Act.

Therefore, it is our respectful submission that Amixent Corporation is liable to pay damages as a
result of the contract termination.

BRIEF SUMMARIES OF EACH CASE:

Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh and Anr [Supreme Court]: In this case, the
Supreme Court of India upheld the principle of "absolute contract," stating that parties cannot
escape liability for breaches caused by inevitable events. However, Section 56 still allows for
contracts to be void if an unforeseen event makes performance impossible or unlawful.

Maula Bux vs Union of India: In this case, Maula Bux contracted with the Government of India
for supplying goods, depositing security sums. When Bux failed to deliver as agreed, the
contracts were terminated, and the security forfeited. Disputes arose over the validity of
forfeiture under Section 74 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court ruled that insufficient
evidence of actual loss existed, clarified the nature of the deposits as security, affirmed the
application of Section 74, and upheld the awarding of reasonable compensation for breach
without proof of actual loss.
PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Defendant respectfully request this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and be pleased to:

 Hold that the unforeseen disruptions in the production and supply chain of Amixent
Corporation do not constitute grounds for frustration of the contract, rendering performance
impossible or radically different from what was originally contemplated.

 Hold that Amixent Corporation did not take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of
the disruptions and fulfill their contractual obligations in light of unforeseen circumstances.

 Hold that the Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability does not apply in this case,
considering the extent of the disruptions and their impact on Amixent Corporation’s ability to
perform under the contract.

 Hold that Rehin Enterprises acted reasonably in refusing to entertain modifications to

the contract terms proposed by Amixent Corporation, considering the nature and severity of
the disruptions.

 Hold that Amixent Corporation should be held liable for damages resulting from the
termination of the contract and they should not be absolved of liability due to the doctrine of
frustration or impossibility.

 Pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE DEFENDANT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAYS.