Sunteți pe pagina 1din 23

UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................ 2-4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................... 6-7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES............................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................10-21

PRAYER.............................................................................................................................22

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 1


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sec. Section

A.I.R. ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. Another

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

Co. Company

Vol. Volume

V. Versus

P. page

G-V Gelatin-V

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 2


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

LIST OF BOOKS
1) POLLOCK AND MULLA – THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 – 14TH EDITION –
NILIMA BHADBHADE
2) CONTRACT – 1 & SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT– 14TH EDITION – Dr. S.K. KAPOOR
3) CONTRACT – 1 – 6TH EDITION – DR. R.K. BANGIA

LIST OF PUBLICATION USED


1) ALL INDIAN REPORTER
2) SUPREME COURT CASES
3) SUPREME COURT REPORTER

LIST OF LAW / ACTS / RULES / MANUALS


1~ Indian Contract Act,1872 – (Act No.9 of 1872)
2~ Civil Procedure Code,1908 – (Act No.5 of 1908)
3~ The Sales Of Goods Act,
LIST OF WEBSITES
1~ www.scconline.in
2~ www.supremecourtcases.com
3~ www.indiankanoon.com
4~ www.lexisnexis.in

LIST OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS


S. No. Full Case Name Citation

1. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kediav. Girdhari Lal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543

and Co. and Ors.

2. Udhoo Dass v. Prem Prakash And Anr. AIR 1964 All 1

3. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) 1 Q.B. 256

4. A.T. Rahghava Chariar v. O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar (1916) 31 MLJ 575

5. Fateh chand v. Balkishan das AIR 1963S.C.1405

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 3


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

6. P. C Rajput v. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1993 MP 107

7. Sorabshah Pestonji v. The Secretary Of State For India (1927) 29 BOMLR 1535

8. R.C. Thakur v. The Bombay Housing Board AIR 1973 Guj 34

9. Maula Bux v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1955

10. Man Kaur (Dead) by LRS V. Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 10 S.C.C. 512

11. Reliance Salt Ltd. V. Cosmos Entreproise (2006) 13S.C.C. 599

12. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjuulben Jyantilal Nakum (1997) 9 S.C.C. 552

13. Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harish Chandra Dwarkadas (1962) 1 S.C.R. 653

14. Balfour v. Balfour (1919 2 K.B. 571

15. Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Ltd. V. Gandhi (2007) 13 SCC 236

Industrial Corporation

16. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) 1 Q.B. 256

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 4


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PLAINTIFF HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE HONOURABLE CIVIL


COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT LUCKNOW, THE MEMORANDUM
FOR THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS CIVIL COURT.

The Plaintiff in the instant case has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Sections-
9,15 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908. This court has jurisdiction in the present case
as the cause of action has arisen in Lucknow, India .

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND THE LAWS ON
WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 5


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) The Syntho (p) Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company which has claimed the production of
the capsule Gelatin-V , which is for overall health and vitality of men and act as best diet
health supplements. These capsules are unique blend of ginseng, vitamins and minerals.
These fight against tiredness and the company has aggressively fixed it’s price to Rs.50.
2) The company in declaration to public interest has prepared capsules to boost immunity
and enhance quality of life and improve physical well as mental health with rejuvenating
and strengthening the body organs.
3) On December01,2015 , it published advertisements in reputed newspapers and media
channels. Claiming no. of benefits of the Gelatin-V Capsules as 1) Diet supplement of
men, 2) Unique combination of minerals, vitamins and ginseng, 3) Provides energy and
fights against tiredness, 4) Perfect of overall health and vitality, 5) Enhances quality of
life, 6)Helps to boost immunity, 7) Strengthens and rejuvenates body organs, 8) Enhances
mental and physical health, 9) Helps to stay fit and active throughout the day. Even and
more it has been mentioned in that has not been evaluated by FSSAI or Food and Drug
Administration and is purely not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease and
disputes relating to it are subject to the jurisdiction of Lucknow Courts only.
4) The company has claimed on June15,2016 through an advertisement that it would pay
Rs. 50,000 to the person with a statement who contracts with increasing fatigue,
weakness or any disease caused by taking multivitamin Gelatin-V capsules, when a
person got sick after consuming these capsules. The statement was printed on each pack
10 , 30 and 60 capsules with 5years of manufacturing.
5) As in the period of 2016-2017thousands of the capsules were consumed as which would
prevent against weakness , fatigue or any other disease due to deficiency of vitamin and
no vice-versa effect was found.
6) Mr. Aviral Singh of 18 years being suffered from malnutrition, chronic fatigue syndrome,
and vitamin deficiency and leading to weakness in the body. he bought a 5 packs of each
60 capsules of packing date 15th January,2016 and he saw the advertisement on 15th
July,2016 regarding capsules. He nearly consumed for about 10 months. He consumed

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 6


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

according to directions of advertisement as each per day . he became heavily relied on the
capsules and felt bodily changes due to stop consuming as 1) frequent stomach upset, 2)
severe allergic relations, 3) difficulty in breathing, 4) tightness in chest, 5)swelling of
mouth, face, lips or tongue, 6) feeling of fatigue and weakness in entire body.
7) Mr. Aviral on resuming it’s consumption discovered that he got all relief after in
meantime the company aggressively raised it’s price of each capsule by 50% to 75%. As
due to enormous success and demand.
8) Mr. Aviral on firmly believing that his body being not able to smoothly work without the
capsule and got it’s addiction and felt himself cheated by company. He claimed Rs.
50,000 and advocate of Mr. Aviral sent a notice to the company and company denied
with an anonymous letter saying that having complete confidence on the capsule’s
efficacy , but to “protect against all fraudulent claims” and they would come to
company’s office to use capsule each day and be checked by the company’s secretary .
Mr. Aviral Singh bought a claim before this Hon’ble court of law to seek justice and
advocate argued that the advertisement and his reliance was a contract between him and
the company.

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 7


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) WHETHER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT IS


VALID AND BINDING ?

2) WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF


SYNTHO (P) LTD. COMPANY ?

3) WHETHER THERE ARE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF


UNDER THE INDIAN LAWS ?

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 8


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) WHETHER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT IS


VALID AND BINDING ?
The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that

the instant plaint is maintainable and the contract between the parties is valid and binding

and there was general offer by defendant and by paying legal consideration there was

acceptance by the plaintiff by performing it’s conditions as laid down by the defendant in

it’s advertisement has concluded a valid acceptance. Therefore, the contract between the

parties is valid and binding.

2) WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF

SYNTHO (P) LTD. COMPANY ?

The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that

the terms mentioned in the contract , which are breached by the Syntho(p) Ltd. are

‘conditions’ as advertised and published by the Syntho(p) Ltd. in the advertisement on

June15, 2016 . The Syntho(p) Ltd. has misrepresented Mr.Aviral Singh about it’s efficacy

of the capsule and has denied such type of contract., thereby committing a breach.

Therefore, it is set out that there is a breach of contract on the part of Syntho(p) Ltd. .

3) WHETHER THERE ARE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF

UNDER THE INDIAN LAWS ?

The parties, who entered into an agreement, innocent party, in case of breach of contract,

is entitled to various remedies. Therefore, Mr.Aviral Singh is entitled to claim the reward

and compensation suffered by it and can also terminate the contract. Further, the

remedies sorted to be granted to the plaintiff.

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 9


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT IS


VALID AND BINDING .

1.1 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the present plaint is filed by Mr. Aviral

Singh for the suit of recovery. The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and

respectfully submits before this Hon’ble court that there was acceptance on the part of Mr. Aviral

Singh towards the general offer made by the Syntho(p) Ltd. Company and thus, they did enter

into a valid contract .

(A) A VALID CONTRACT

1.2 A Contract is an agreement enforceable by law according to sec. 2(h)1 . It is an agreement or

set of promises giving rise to obligations which can be enforced or are recognized by law 2. A

contract to be enforceable has to fulfil the conditions which are laid down in sec.10 that3:

What agreements are contracts.—All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free

consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and

are not hereby expressly declared to be void. —All agreements are contracts if they are made by

the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful

object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void." Nothing herein contained shall affect

any law in force in 1[India], and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is

1
Sec. 2 (h) of The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872
2
Sec. 2 (e) of The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872
3
Sec. 10 of The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 10


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the

registration of documents.

1.3 The counsel would like to humbly submit that in the case of Bhagwandas v. Girdhari Lal

and Co. it has been held that it states that there has to be an acceptance4 and the consideration

has to be lawful which has been held in the case of Udhoo Dass vs Prem Prakash And Anr. 5.

Therefore , it is submitted that Syntho (p) Ltd. is bound to compensate the loss as , firstly , Mr.

Aviral can seek enforcement of contract and secondly , that the contract between the parties is a

valid contract and binding them .

(B) GENERAL OFFER WAS MADE BY DEFENDANT

1.4 The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits before this

Hon’ble court that Syntho(p) Ltd. had made a general offer to the public at large , that

“Rs.50,000/- reward will be paid by the Syntho(p) Ltd. to any person who contracts with the

increasing fatigue, weakness or any disease caused by taking multi-vitamins “G-V” capsules

after having used one capsule a day, according to printed directions”6. An offer made to public at

large is called a general offer. A proposal made with a view to obtain assent of another and is

made with a view to create legal relations7. Even when proposal made to accept it and a contract

to be made with a limited portion of public would only come forward and perform the condition

on the faith of the advertisement8. The person who accepts such offer, generally, by performing

the conditions, can bind the person making the offer . Although, in the case of carlill v. carbolic

smoke ball co. , it was held by the Hon’ble court that “a general offer is made to the public at

4
AIR 1966 SC 543
5
AIR 1964 All 1
6
Moot Proposition – Para 4
7
Balfour vs. Balfour , (1919 2 K.B. 571 at pp.578-579 (S.K. Kapoor – Pg No. 23)
8
Carlill v. Carbolic smoke ball co. (1893) 1 Q.B. 256

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 11


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

large , the contract is concluded only with the person who acts upon such terms of the offer , i.e.

who accepts the offer and this being a general offer’9.

(C) ACCEPTANCE WAS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF

1.5 The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits this Hon’ble

court that the plaintiff, Mr. Aviral Singh was merely aware of the advertisement and he believed

in the accuracy of the statement appearing in the advertisement. However a valid contract to be

made , the offeree should either accept the offer expressly or impliedly his acceptance through

his conduct which takes form of a positive act .The plaintiff did fulfil the terms and conditions as

advertised in the reputed newspapers as he saw on July 15 , 201610 . The plaintiff had bought

about 5 packs of 60 capsules where he had consumed as per directions which were advertised by

the Syntho(p) Ltd. . after drawing inferences from the sec. 2(b)11 , it is clear that by consuming

the G. V capsules , the plaintiff had signified his assent to the general offer made by the

Syntho(p) Ltd. . It means that, a manner was prescribed in the advertisement, and the acceptance

had to be accepted in that prescribed manner as fulfilled under sec. 7 as :

Acceptance must be absolute - In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance

must—

(1) be absolute and unqualified;

(2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the

manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be

accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable

9
(1893) 1 Q. B. 256
10
Moot Proposition – Para 6 – line 3&4
11
Sec. 2(b) of the The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872 - (b) When the person to whom the proposal is made
signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise;

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 12


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in

the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance.

Even if the acceptance is complete when the performance will be enforceable even if

advertisement tender was silent12. Such acceptance form a promise13 .In Bhagwandas v.

Girdhari Lal and Co.14, it was held that “ In order to create a contract , acceptance of an offer

and intimation of acceptance by some external manifestation , which the law regards as sufficient

is necessary “.

Therefore, plaintiff did fulfil both the conditions to the contract, even though he consumed for

nearly about 10 months .The person who makes the offer shows by his language and from the

nature of the transaction that he does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance

apart from the notice of performance15

Hence the counsel on the behalf of plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits this Hon’ble

court that plaintiff had fulfilled the conditions of the offer and therefore , there was acceptance

on the part of plaintiff and the entered into a contract . Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the

reward and the other damages.

(D) ACT OF THE PLAINTIFF AMOUNTS TO VALID AGREEMENT

1.6 The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits before this

Hon’ble court that the plaintiff, Mr. Aviral had consumed the entire capsules as per the

instructions mentioned by the company’s advertisement. In regard to the contract, the agreement

12
Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Gandhi Industrial Corporation, (2007) 13 SCC 236 –
S.K. Kapoor – Pg. 29
13
See SUPRA NOTE 7
14
1966 AIR 543
15
Carlill v. Carbolic smoke ball co. (1893) 1 Q.B. 256

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 13


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

has to be valid and has to fulfil conditions as to sec.2(e)16. An agreement arises by ‘offer’ or

‘proposal’ by one party and the ‘acceptance of such proposal by the other party, such acceptance

as converts into promise and when promise and when performance of the conditions or receiving

consideration leads to a valid agreement. So, promise is supported by consideration17.

The plaintiff had started consuming capsules as per directions mentioned in the pack and even

though buyed it by paying money (as a form of consideration) , so , promise was accepted by the

promisee by buying and consuming the capsules and at the part of promisor while he received

the money as paid consideration .

1.7 Hence the counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits this

Hon’ble court that plaintiff had acted as per terms and conditions of a valid agreement , where he

followed directions of the company and had paid the consideration . Thus, the plaintiff is entitled

to claim the reward and the other damages.

(E) FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUISITES OF THE SEC.10 i.e VALID CONTRACT

1.8 The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits this Hon’ble

court that there was a reliance between the plaintiff and the company , where it is a valid contract

between the parties . As above mentioned in the supra point (A) that to be a valid contract the

agreement has to be enforceable by law or enforceability and has also to fulfil the conditions

as:18

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

16
Sec. 2(e) of the The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872 - (e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming
the consideration for each other, is an agreement;
17
A.T. Rahghava Chariar vs. O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar on 5 th April, 1916
18
Sec. 10 of the The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 14


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void." Nothing herein contained shall affect
any law in force in 1[India], and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is
required to be made in writing 2or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the
registration of documents.

The sec. 2(h)19 also declares to be a contract that an agreement has to be enforceable by law. The
plaintiff has paid consideration in respect of set of promises for the consumption of the Gelatin-
V capsules and the agreement is enforceable by law. the requirements of sec. 10 are fulfilled as
follows -
# That there was free consent and both plaintiff and defendant are competent to the contract
.i.e. parties are major , parties are of sound mind , parties are not barred by any law .
# That the consideration as received and given by the plaintiff in respect of the promise is
rupees and G-V capsules which are a lawful consideration
# That the lawful consideration was done with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly
declared void .
As all of the above requisites of the sec. 10 has been fulfilled by the petitioner .
1.9 Hence the counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits
this Hon’ble court that plaintiff has fulfilled all the conditions of the sec. 10 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. Thus, the contract between to the suit is valid and binding.

(F) PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE SEC. 8 IS VALID AND


BINDING
1.10 The counsel on the behalf of the of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits
before this Hon’ble court that the plaintiff , Mr. Aviral Singh was merely aware of the
advertisement and he believing in the accuracy of the statements as published by Syntho(p)
Ltd. as on December 01 ,2015 and June 15, 2016 and did consume the capsule according to
the conditions specified by the defendant.

19
Sec. 2(h) of the The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872 - (h) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract;

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 15


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

2) THAT THERE IS A BREACH ON THE PART OF SYNTHO (P) LTD. COMPANY

2.1 The counsel on the behalf of the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submits before this

Hon’ble court that there was breach of contract on the part of Syntho(p) Ltd. .The terms of a

contract must provide basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an

appropriate remedy.20Therefore, it is submitted that , Firstly , the terms mentioned in the contract

are ‘conditions’ and Secondly, there is misrepresentation on the part of Syntho(p) Ltd. .

(A) THE TERMS MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT ARE ‘CONDITIONS’

2.2 A condition is a stipulation essential to the purpose of contract, breach of which gives a right

to the innocent party to treat the contract as terminated.21Thereby, it is humbly put forward that

“every contract contains a ‘core’ or fundamental obligation which must be performed. If one

party fails to perform this obligation, he will be guilty of a breach of the obligation….” The

breach of contract is the deviation from the main purpose of the contract. A breach of a contract

which goes to root of the contract or which conflicts with its main purpose, is a deviation from,

or a repudiation or fundamental breach, of such contract….[T]his expression is no more than a

convenient shorthand expression for saying that a particular breach or breaches of contract by

one party is or are such as to go to the root of the contract which entitles the other party to treat

such breach or breaches as a repudiation of the whole contract and sue for damages.22

2.3 The terms & conditions as to relied and fulfilled by the plaintiff on the advertisement

published on June 15, 2016 by the Syntho(p) Ltd. as to “after having one capsule per day ,

according to the printed directions supplied in the pack” is a condition , where he has consumed

20
Fateh chand v. Balkishan das AIR 1963 S.C. 1405
21 21
Sec. 12(2) of the The Sales of Goods Act , No. 3 of 1930
22
P. C Rajput v. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1993 MP 107

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 16


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

for nearly about 10 months continuously and has fully fulfilled all the conditions of a valid

contract .

2.4 The counsel for plaintiff humbly submits before the Hon’ble Civil Court of Lucknow that

the sole purpose of buying the capsules was only to only provide energy and fight against

tiredness, which would be perfect for overall health and vitality and even enhance the quality of

life.

Hence, the correct functioning of the capsule is the fundamental and core term of the contract.

Furthermore, the Mr. Aviral had become heavily relied on the Gelatin-V capsules and he felt

over severe bodily change due to stop consuming it . It is to say that without stopping the

consumption of the capsules it would not be inefficient to know the effect of capsule as claimed

by the Syntho (p) Ltd. via advertisement.

2.5 The very inaccuracy of the capsules which led to weakness in the body of the plaintiff and

denial to take liability resulted in the fundamental breach of contract on the part of Syntho(p)

Ltd. .

(B) THERE IS MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF SYNTHO (P) LTD.

2.6 ‘Misrepresentation’ is any breach of duty which gains an advantage to the person committing

it by misleading another to his prejudice, there being no intention to deceive.

It may be a false representation by one party with regard to a material fact when case comes

within Sec. 18(2), and that in any event it comes within Sec. 18(3) because the defendants hereby

made "a mistake as to the substance of the thing"23 . It renders the contract voidable at the option

of the party if led by misrepresentation24 .

23
Sorabshah Pestonji vs The Secretary Of State For India (1927) 29 BOMLR 1535
24
Sec. 18 of the The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 17


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Further, a representation is a statement made by a representator to a representatee and relating by

by way of affirmation , denial description, otherwise to a matter of fact 25.when representing a

statement of intention of existing fact , it may be misrepresentation if at time it was made, the

intention or the ability to put it into effect did not exist26. So, the defendant has represented to

the plaintiff to that it is a supplement of vitamins, minerals and would also fight against tiredness

but , they misrepresented Mr. Aviral as it became heavily relied on them and made very severe

allergic reactions and even led to weakness in the body. Syntho(p) Ltd. on multiple occasions has

made active representations of it’s unworthy capabilities of performing the contract. Thus, in the

instant case, there was a causing prejudice to the plaintiff has caused an act of misrepresentation.

2.7 Further, to continue the falsity of a representation it should be found false in the substance as

well as in fact27 . In the instant case, the defendant has declared in public interest the these

capsules are to boost the immunity as well as to enhance the quality of life 28 . The capsules

efficacy is not such that it would affect positively the body of a person as claimed by the

defendant in the advertisement that it has not been evaluated by the food and Standards

Authority of India (FSSAI) and Food and drug Administration. The company in false represents

the fact before the public that it has not evaluated by FSSAI and Mr.Aviral became heavily relied

on the capsule where after stopping it’s consumption resulted in severe allergic reaction and

weakness in the body which was done to presume it’s effects which were so much inefficient

with the efficiency of the capsules as claimed by the Syntho(p) Ltd. .

25
Pollock and Mulla of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 14th Edition Pg. No. 403
26
Ediginton v. Fitzmaurice(1885) 29 Ch D 459( 26 Pollock and Mulla of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 14 th Edition
Pg. No. 409
27
R.C. Thakur v. The Bombay Housing Board AIR 1973 Guj 34 p.44
28
Moot proposition – Para 3 – Line 4&5

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 18


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

2.8 Moreover, the Syntho(p) Ltd. has not fulfilled at their part and has even rescind the contract

by saying that the efficacy of the capsule was such that it would protect them against all

fraudulent claims29 . The misrepresentation became Active when they aggressively raised the

price which was much higher that so if an ordinary person could buy, after even capsules became

heavy relying on the plaintiffs body. Therefore, there is misrepresentation on the part of

Syntho(p) Ltd by continuing a breach of duty .

(C) THAT THERE IS A BREACH OF DUTY ON THE PART OF SYNTHO (P) LTD.

2.9 Where a party to a contract , with a view to enter into a knows that there has been a breach of

duty, and prejudiced , then the person claiming under him may sue and even declare the contract

to be held voidable on the grounds of fraud. In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the party so

has the right to terminate the contract30, along with an action for damages.31

2.10 Thus Syntho(p) Ltd. ,by denying the contract and even saying that they would come to

company’s office and they would be checked each day , so, has fraudulently misrepresented

Mr.Aviral Singh .The company has breached the contract and has fallen under the section 7332

29
Moot proposition – para 8 – Line 9
30
Pollock and Mulla , Indian Contract $ Specific Relief Act 515 (R. G. Padia, Ed. 13 th 2010)
31
Id.
32
Section 73 of The Indian Contract Act , No. 9 of 1872

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 19


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

3) THAT THERE ARE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO PLAINTIFF UNDER INDIAN

LAWS.

3.1 There are remedies available to plaintiff under Indian laws. Where the party performing a

contract does not do so as per the standard requires under the contract or within the time
33
frame set, that party is liable for the breach of the contract . In such cases the party

suffering due to such breach of contract has various remedies. Therefore , it is submitted that

Mr. Aviral Singh can sought for , Firstly , contract is voidable at option of Mr. Aviral singh

and secondly, claim and compensation is to be granted to Mr. Aviral Singh .

(A) THE CONTRACT CAN BE TERMINATED AND COMPENSATION TO BE

GRANTED TO MR. AVIRAL SINGH

3.2 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there is a breach of contract by one

party by misrepresentation , the innocent party can terminate the contract . Thereby , it is put

forth that, there is a breach of contract on the part of Syntho(p) Ltd.(a) and, Mr. Aviral Singh

is entitled to receive compensation .

(B) THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF SYNTHO (P) LTD.

3.3 A breach of contract occurs when a party to a contract fails to perform his part of the

contract34. Such breach may occur either on the due date of performance or during the course

of performance35. Furthermore , prima facie a breach of condition entitles the innocent party

to rescind the contract and claim damages for any loss he may have suffered.36

33
Maula Bux v. Union of India AIR 1970S.C. 1955
34
Man Kaur (Dead) by LRS V. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010 10 S.C.C. 512
35
Reliance Salt Ltd. V. Cosmos Entreproise , (2006) 13s.c.c. 599
36
9 Halsbury , Halsbury’s laws of india : damages 542 ( buttersworth india, New Delhi , Ed. 4 2001)

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 20


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Syntho(p) Ltd. , thus , by aggressively raising the price and by denying the contract , has

breached the contract37.Thus, Mr.Aviral Singh is entitled for damages.

3.4 It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that as a consequence of breach of contract, it is

part or duty of other party to pay the damages and in the instant case, thereby , Syntho(p)

Ltd. has committed itself a positive breach which is in itself a duty to pay damages and

compensate the injured party as Mr. Aviral Singh.

(C) MR. AVIRAL SINGH IS ENTITLTED TO RECEIVE

CLAIM AND COMPENSATION

3.5 The damages which the innocent party ought to receive in respect of such breach of

contract should be such as may be fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally

i.e. as per usual course of things from such breach itself38.

3.6 The injured party has to be placed in as good a situation as if the contract has been

performed39 . It is humbly submitted that, Syntho(p) Ltd. is liable to pay the claim of

Rs.50,000 as published in advertisement and damages along with amount paid as

consideration in contract , along with damages and interest.

37
Moot Proposition – para 7 – line 4 and para 8 – line 14
38
Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjuulben Jyantilal Nakum (1997) 9 S.C.C. 552
39
Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harish Chandra Dwarkadas , (1962) 1 S.C.R. 653

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 21


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

PRAYER

Wherefore. in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited , it is

most humbly prayed and implored before this Honb’le Civil court of Civil Judge oJunior

Division at Lucknow, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that :

1~ The contract between the parties is valid and binding.

2~ There is a breach of contract on the part of Syntho (p) Ltd.

3~ The remedies sought for be granted.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of the Plaintiff to meet the

ends of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Plaintiff shall duty bound forever pray

Place: Lucknow s/d

Date : Counsel for Plaintiff

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 22


UNITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF Page 23