Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moot Memorial (D) Final
Moot Memorial (D) Final
TEAM CODE:
CONTRACT MOOT – 1
Before
Versus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Abbreviations………………………………………3
Index of Authorities…………………………………………4
Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………….5
Issues Raised…………………………………………………8
Summary of Arguments…………………………………… 9
Arguments Advanced…………………………………….23
2
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION WORD
& And
Hon’ble Honorable
Sc Supreme court
Ltd Limited
Pvt. Private
Art. Article
S. Section
V. Versus
No. Number
Co. company
Corp. Corporation
p. Page
OR’s. Others
J. Justice
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
CASES
STATUTES
1. The Indian contract act, 1872
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
BOOKS
1. Contract book by RK Banga
2. Contract and specific relief by Avtar Singh
3. Textbook on law of contract by Dr. H.K Sahara
4. Contract law by Robert Duxbury
JOURNALS
1. http://www.indiancaselaws.org
2. http://www.judic.nic.in
3. http://www.lexisnexis.com
4. http://www.scconline.co.in
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
The Plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court under Sec.9 of Civil Procedure
Code,1908 in form of a civil application in civil court.
Sec.9 of CPC- Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. The Courts shall (subject
to the provisions here in contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil
nature expecting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.
Explanation 2 - For the purpose 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
5
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
1. The Cockroach (P) Ltd., a pharmaceutical Delhi based company, made a multivitamin
capsule called the "Maggots-M".
2. The company claimed that the production of such capsules is purely for the overall
health, wellbeing and vitality of men, and therefore, these capsules are one of the best
diet health supplements as these capsules are very effective and a unique blend of
ginseng, vitamins and minerals.
3. The Cockroach (P) Ltd. published advertisements in the reputed newspapers and other
media channels on December 01, 2013, claiming the number of benefits for the
consumption of "Maggots-M" capsules such as a diet health supplement for men; a
unique combination of minerals, vitamins and ginseng; Provides energy and fights
against tiredness; Perfect for overall health and vitality; Enhances quality of life; Helps to
boost immunity; Strengthens and rejuvenates body organs; Enhances mental and physical
health; Helps to stay fit and active throughout the day.
4. Contracts with the increasing fatigue, weakness or any disease caused by taking multi-
vitamins "Maggots-M" capsules, after having used one capsule a day, according to the
printed directions supplied with the pack of 10, 30 and 60 capsules whose expiry period
will be of 5 years from the date of manufacturing. The statement regarding award of
Rs.50,000/- was printed on each pack of 10, 30 and 60 capsules."
6. Mr. Kharak Singh, aged 15 years, suffered from malnutrition; chronic fatigue syndrome
and vitamin deficiency that led to muscle weakness in the entire body system.
6
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
7. He started consuming one capsule a day as per the instructions mentioned in each pack.
He consumed the entire capsules as per the instructions mentioned by the company for
nearly 10 months but after a week, he found that his body is heavily relying on these
capsules.
8. Mr. Kharak Singh after having been firmly believed that his body cannot smoothly work
without consuming these capsules and his body developed an addiction for such capsules,
he felt himself cheated by the company as he again cannot afford such a high price multi-
vitamin capsule. He, therefore, claimed Rs.50,000/- and other form of damages from the
Cockroach (P) Ltd. The company bluntly ignored the claim of Mr. Kharak Singh.
9. Mr. Kharak Singh now brought a claim to the court of law for seeking justice.
7
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
1. WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY DEFENDANT AND ACCCEPTENCE
COMMUNICATED BY THE PLANTIFF WERE VALID AS PER INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
ISSUE 2
2. WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER DONE BY THE DEFENDANT WAS AS
PER THR PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
ISSUE 3
3. WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT FORMED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF
AND THE DEFENDANT AND WHETHER IT WAS BREACHED?
8
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
9
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
10
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
advertisement promising a reward for using "Maggots-M" capsules and Mr. Kharak Singh's
continuous use of the capsules, indicate the creation of a legal relationship
Knowledge of the Intention of the parties is very essential as without this the courts will not be
able to decide what the parties want to do. Therefore, the terms of the offer must be clear and
definite and not vague and loose. An offer is a proposal made by one party indicating a
willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms. In this case, Cockroach (P) Ltd. made an
offer through its advertisement, which promised a reward of Rs.50,000. The offer was directed at
individuals experiencing fatigue, weakness, or disease due to the "Maggots-M" capsules. Section
2(a) of the Indian Contract Act defines an offer as a proposal made with the intention of being
accepted.
Communication or expression of the willingness by the offeror to enter into a contract or abstain
from doing so is essential for a valid offer. Mere desire or willingness to do or not to do
something is not enough and will not constitute for an offer. Acceptance is the unequivocal
expression of agreement to the terms of the offer. Mr. Kharak Singh accepted the offer made by
Cockroach (P) Ltd. by purchasing and continuously using the "Maggots-M" capsules as per the
advertised conditions. His actions demonstrated his willingness to be bound by the terms set
forth in the advertisement.
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the concept of acceptance. In the case of
unilateral contracts, such as the one implied by the advertisement, performance of the specified
act (here, using the capsules as directed) is treated as acceptance. The communication of
acceptance is completed through the act itself. The offer was made to the public at large, and Mr.
Kharak Singh accepted it by performing the required act without the need for direct
communication.
11
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
Sec.2(b) of 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" Thus, acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unqualified. It cannot be condition.
And in the given case offer was made through the advertisement's promise of a reward, and Mr.
Kharak Singh accepted this offer by performing the specified act. Sections 2(a) and 10 of the
Indian Contract Act establish the foundational concepts of offer and acceptance, crucial in
determining the existence and validity of the contract in this case.
(I) as against the proposer, when it is put in the course of transmission to him, so as to be out of
the power of the acceptor, and
(ii) as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror
The acceptance must be in conformity with the terms of the proposal; any variance might
amount to a counter-proposal, not an acceptance.
Acceptance must be communicated for it to be valid unless the proposer prescribes the
mode of communication.
12
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
In the case, the plaintiff’s actions did not adhere to the precise process or steps specified in the
offer to claim the reward. As per Section 7, any deviation from the terms specified in the
proposal could potentially amount to a counter-proposal, rather than a valid acceptance.
Furthermore, Section 9 emphasizes the necessity for the act constituting acceptance to align with
the terms of the proposal. If the plaintiff’s actions did not strictly adhere to the outlined
procedures or if there were specific steps mentioned in the offer for claiming the reward, the
defendant might assert that these were not duly followed, rendering the acceptance invalid.
In the case of Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (1987) , the issue cantered on the
enforceability of an exemption clause within a contract. Mr. Miles was a council tenant, and after
an accident where he fell down a staircase, he sought damages for his injuries. The stairs were
poorly lit, and there was no handrail in place. The council had included an exemption clause in
their tenancy agreement, which attempted to limit their liability for certain types of damages.
Specifically, it excluded liability for personal injury arising from defects within common areas of
the building. When considering this case, the relevance lies in understanding the enforceability
of exemption clauses, particularly in the realm of consumer contracts. If the company in the
"Maggots-M" scenario attempts to rely on disclaimers or exemption clauses within their
advertisement, the precedent set by the Miles case could be referenced in discussions about the
validity and enforceability of such clauses.
The court in Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council determined that the exemption
clause was unenforceable due to several reasons:
1. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977: This Act regulates contracts by setting guidelines for
exclusion clauses, particularly where one party has significantly more bargaining power.
The court found that the exemption clause in the tenancy agreement attempted to exclude
13
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
liability for personal injury that was clearly a fundamental right and could not be
contracted out.
2. Test: Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, exemption clauses must be reasonable. The
court examined whether the clause was fair, just, and reasonable. They held that the
exemption clause was unfair, as it sought to absolve the council from liability for
essential safety aspects of the property.
The Miles case could be cited to argue against the enforceability of such clauses. If the
advertisement disclaimers are deemed unreasonable or if they attempt to exclude liability for
essential aspects of health or safety, they might be considered unenforceable in the context of a
contract formed through the advertisement.
In Partridge v Crittenden (1968), Mr. Partridge placed an advertisement offering "Bramble finch
cocks and hens for sale." He was charged with illegally offering wild birds for sale. The court
ruled that the advertisement was an invitation to treat rather than a specific offer for sale. This
meant that a customer's attempt to purchase the birds was considered their offer, and the seller's
acceptance of that offer formed the contract. The advertisement for the "Maggots-M" capsules
was an invitation to treat rather than a specific offer, the following points prove the statement:
Nature of Advertisement: The advertisement was not a direct offer but rather an invitation for
customers to make an offer to purchase the capsules. They might claim that their advertisement
was more akin to an invitation to negotiate or make an offer, rather than a unilateral offer.
1. Intention to Treat: the language and context of company’s advertisement were not
definitive enough to constitute a firm offer. The advertisement was portrayed as an invitation
for customers to consider purchasing the capsules, leaving the actual offer and acceptance to
occur when a customer attempts to buy the product.
14
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
So, it is humbly submitted to the court that the company didn't directly offer to sell the capsules
but rather invited customers to make an offer to buy them, with the company subsequently
accepting those offers.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (1976) is a case that involved
estoppel, a legal principle preventing a party from denying a fact that has already been settled,
especially if that denial would cause injustice to another party.
The company had previously made statements in their advertisements and other materials that
led Mr. Singh to reasonably believe in the effectiveness and necessity of the capsules, it could be
argued that they are estopped from denying the truth of these statements in subsequent actions or
disputes.
1. Representation by the Company: The company made specific representations about the
effectiveness and necessity of the capsules in their advertisements. These representations
led Mr. Singh, and potentially other consumers, to believe in the product's benefits as
stated.
2. Reliance by Mr. Singh: relying on these representations, purchased and consumed the
capsules, believing in the promised benefits. This reliance was reasonable, given the
explicit claims made by the company in their advertisements.
3. Detrimental Reliance: Mr. Singh's reliance on these statements resulted in his continued
consumption and eventual reliance on the capsules for his well-being. The sudden
increase in price and subsequent inability to afford the product caused him detriment,
impacting his health and well-being.
4. Estoppel as a Défense: Based on the principle of estoppel, the defence contend that due
to the representations made by the company and Mr. Singh's justifiable reliance on these
statements, the company should be estopped from denying the truth of these claims.
Denying the efficacy and necessity of the capsules, after inducing reliance through their
prior representations, would result in injustice to Mr. Singh.
15
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
The council humbly submits that the company's prior representations in their advertisements
created a reasonable belief in the product's benefits, which Mr. Singh relied upon to his
detriment. Estoppel, in this context, would prevent the company from denying the truth of these
representations in any subsequent actions or disputes related to the efficacy and necessity of the
capsules. Hence, acceptance is not valid as per Indian contract act, 1872.
The respondent humbly summits that it is clear from the discussion of issue no.1 that there is not
valid contract formed between plaintiff and respondent. So, the company is not liable to pay
damages.
There are several remedies for breach of contract, such as award of damages, specific
performance research and restitution in courts of limited jurisdiction. The May remedy is
an award of damages
The term “Damages” is not defined in the Indian Contract Act. 1872. However, in
common parallels, it means an award of money to be paid by a defaulting party to
unknown defaulting party as a compensation for loss or injury cased on count of the
defaulting parties preach of the terms and conditions of contract.
In a leading case:
In the Common cause vs Union of India [1999(6) SCC 667], The Supreme Court extracted the
definition of the word damages as propounded by MC Gregor at Para 127 as follows:
“Damages are the pecuniary compensation obtainable by success in an action for a wrong which
is either a taught or a breach of contract The compensation being in the form of a lamp sum
which is awarded unconditionally”.
Types of damages:
1. Compensatory Damages:
16
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
General Damages: These are non-monetary losses that are difficult to quantify
precisely, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of consortium.
Special Damages: These are quantifiable monetary losses that can be specifically
calculated, such as medical expenses, property damage, or lost wages.
2. Punitive Damages:
The aim is to deter the defendant and others from similar conduct.
3. Nominal Damages:
A small amount awarded when a legal wrong has occurred, but there is no
substantial injury or financial loss.
4. Liquidated Damages:
5. Compensatory Damages:
Arise indirectly from the defendant's actions and are not the direct result of the
wrongful act.
6. Restitutionary Damages:
Aimed at restoring the unjust enrichment gained by the defendant at the expense
of the plaintiff.
17
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
Focuses on restoring the plaintiff to the position they were in before the unjust
enrichment occurred.
7. Statutory Damages:
These are the following arguments, relying on specific sections of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
To build a robust defense against the plaintiff's claim for damages,
Argument: The defendant argue that the representations made in the advertisements about the
"Maggots-M" capsules were not false. Section 18 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act deal with the
concept of misrepresentation. the capsules contain the claimed blend of ginseng, vitamins, and
minerals, and were produced for overall health and vitality, the plaintiff's claim of false
representation should be refuted.
Argument: The defence rely on Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with the
principles of performance of reciprocal promises. the company included a disclaimer or
exclusion clause on the product packaging, stating that individual reactions may vary and the
company is not responsible for dependency issues, the defence humbly submits that the plaintiff
had agreed to such terms, and the company is not liable for the alleged damages.
Argument: The defence argue that during the period of 2014-15, thousands of consumers used
the "Maggots-M" capsules without reporting adverse effects. Section 15 of the Indian Contract
Act highlights that a contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by a mistake as to any
18
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
law in force in India. Hence, lack of adverse effects in the general population supports the safety
and efficacy of the product.
Argument: If the plaintiff continued to consume the capsules for an extended period despite
experiencing issues, there is contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Section 73 of the
Indian Contract Act allows for the reduction of damages if the plaintiff's actions contributed to
the loss. If Mr. Singh continued to consume the capsules despite adverse effects, the defence may
assert that he was negligent in not discontinuing usage.
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with the measure of damages in the case of
breach of contract. It states:
"When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
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."
Argument: The defence humbly submits that the damages suffered by Mr. Kharak Singh,
including alleged dependency and distress, were not foreseeable consequences of using the
"Maggots-M" capsules as directed.
the defense, by invoking Section 73, aims to establish that the damages suffered by the plaintiff
were not foreseeable based on the information available at the time of entering into the contract.
This argument seeks to mitigate the extent of compensation payable by asserting that the
consequences were beyond what the parties could have reasonably anticipated.
The defence assert that the company marketed the product in good faith, believing in the health
benefits without foreseeing extreme dependencies. Section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act
19
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
acknowledges that mistakes as to any law in force in India do not make a contract voidable. the
company genuinely believed in the product's benefits.
So, the council humbly submits that the plaintiff is not entitled for damages as mentioned
in the case.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that there was no breach of Contract on behalf
of defendant as it is not a valid contract as per the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
VALID CONTRACT
A contract is an agreement made between two or more parties which the law will enforce.
Sec2(h) defines contract as an agreement enforceable by law". Basically, a contract unfolds when
an offer by one party is accepted by the other party. The accepted offer should be without any
qualification and be definite. An offer needs to be clear, definite, complete and final. It should be
communicated to the offeree. A proposal when accepted becomes a promise or agreement. the
offer and acceptance must be 'consensus ad idem' which means that both the parties must agree
on the same thing in the same sense i.e., identity of wills or uniformity of minds.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that there was no contract established as because
the communication made by the offeree or petitioner was not completed.
Argument: The defendant contends that there was no valid contract formed between the plaintiff
and the defendant. The foundation of this argument lies in the absence of essential elements
required for a contract to be legally binding.
Legal Terms:
20
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
An offer, according to Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, is a proposal made
by one party to another with the intention of obtaining the assent of that other
party to enter into a contract.
Argument Point: The defence may scrutinize whether there was a clear and
unequivocal offer made by the defendant. If there is ambiguity or if the
communication does not meet the criteria of a legal offer, it raises doubts about
the formation of a contract.
Acceptance, as defined in Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, is when the
person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent, and when accepted, it
becomes a promise.
Argument Point: The defence may question whether the plaintiff's actions or
communication unequivocally signified assent to the terms offered by the
defendant. If acceptance is not clearly established, it raises doubts about the
mutual agreement required for a valid contract.
Consideration, under Section 2(d), is the price paid by one party for the promise
of the other. It is an essential element for the validity of a contract.
Argument Point: The defence may examine whether there was a tangible benefit
or detriment exchanged between the parties. If the consideration is missing or
unclear, it weakens the contract's validity.
21
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
Argument Point: The defence may question whether there was a genuine
intention by both parties to be legally bound by the terms of their agreement. If
there is evidence suggesting a lack of such intention, it raises doubts about the
contract's legal enforceability.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the defence’s argument centres on the absence of a valid contract due to potential
deficiencies in the offer, acceptance, consideration, or the intention to create legal relations. By
challenging these essential elements, the defence aims to cast doubt on the formation of a legally
binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Definition: Ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity or precision in language, making the meaning of
terms uncertain or open to multiple interpretations.
A fundamental principle of contract law is the requirement for clear and unequivocal
terms in the formation of a contract. The terms and conditions of a contract serve as the
foundation, outlining the rights and obligations of each party.
22
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
The defence contends that there was ambiguity in the terms and conditions, it challenges
the very formation of a valid contract. A valid contract requires a meeting of the minds
with a clear understanding of the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
Contract formation involves an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other,
resulting in mutual assent. If the terms are ambiguous, it raises doubts about whether both
parties truly understood and agreed to the same set of conditions.
Ambiguous terms can lead to disagreements and disputes between the parties, as each
may interpret the terms differently. This lack of clarity may result in confusion regarding
contractual performance and obligations.
7. Legal Implications:
It is humbly submitted to the court that the burden of proving the existence of a valid and
clear contract rests with the plaintiff. the plaintiff fails to demonstrate the clarity of terms, it
weakens their position in asserting a breach of contract.
23
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
AND/OR
PASS ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. FOR WHICH, THE COUNSEL
SHALL FOREVER PRAY
24
MEMORIAL FOR DEFENCE
25