INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2017-2022)

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF DELHI

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96(1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE ,1908

IN THE MATTER OF:

KHARAK SINGH …………………………….APPELLANT

v.

COCKROCH (P) Ltd……………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPODENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBERVIATIONS……………………………………………3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………..6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………….7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………...10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………11
 PRAYER ………………………………………………………………13
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

A.I.R All India Reporter

(P) Private

Ltd. Limited

Del. Delhi

Co Company

Admin. Administration

Adv. Advertisement

Cap. Capsule

News. Newspaper

Sec. Secretary

exp. Expiry

Rs. Rupees

MVI Multi-Vitamins

Sec. Section
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

The Hon’ble High Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under
Section 96(1) of the code of civil procedure ,1908.
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

1. The Cockroch (P) Ltd. a pharmaceutical company based in Delhi, made a

multi-vitamin capsule called the “Maggots –M”.
2.The company claimed that these capsules are for overall health, wellbeing and
vitality of men and are diet health supplements as they are unique blend ginseng,
vitamins and minerals.
3.The company fixed the price of each capsule at Rs.50 and announced in public
that taking a capsule per day will give energy and helps to fight against the
tiredness.
4.The Cockroch (P) Ltd. published an advertisement in newspaper and media
channels on December 01,2013, claiming no. of benefits and conditions like:
(a) Provides energy
(b) fight against tiredness
(c) perfect for overall health
(d) strengths body organs
(e) enhances quality of life
(f) helps to stay fit
5. Capsules are not evaluated by FOOD AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION OF
INDIA (FSSAI).
6.Capsule are not made to diagnose, treat , cure or prevent any disease .
7.the disputes regarding the consumption must be subject to jurisdiction courts in
Dwaraka Delhi.
8.On 15th june 2014, company further published an advertisement that it would
pay Rs.50,000 to the person who got sick after using capsules according to
instructions. The statement generated is as under :- “Rs. 50,000/- reward will be
paid by the company to any person who contracts with the increasing fatigue,
weakness or any disease caused by taking capsules, after having used one capsule
a day, according to the printed directions.
9. Mr. Kharak singh aged 15 yrs , suffered from malnutrition , chronic , fatigue
syndrome and vitamin deficiency led to muscle weakness . after seeing the adv.
kharak singh decided to use it.
10. During jan. 2016, there was an increase in the demand of capsule due to which
the company raised the price 50% to 75%.
11. After eating it for 10 months, he found that his body is relying on the capsules
and felt a lot of bodily changes and on resuming eating those capsules he got
relief.
12. He felt cheated and claimed for reward but company ignored. After which he
through his advocate send a legal notice for claiming in which Co replied that the
Co has full faith on its product and they want Kharak Singh to consume those
capsules in the company and will be checked by the secretary.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
1. Whether there is a valid contract between Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. and Kharak
Singh?
1.1 Whether the respondent being a minor is eligible to contract and can sue
for breach of contract?
1.2 Whether there was intention to create legal relationship?
2. Whether the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay the amount offered by
them as reward?
2.1 Whether the language in advertisement regarding the reward was meant
to be a promise or was a mere puff?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:
1. Whether there is a valid contract between Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. and Kharak
Singh?
As the company has not given any offer to the apellant which he can
reject or accept therefore there is no contract.
It is also said that by Lord J. Lindley said “supposing that the
performance of the condition is an acceptance of the offer that acceptance
ought to have been notified”
The acceptance was not notified .Hence it is not a valid contract.
2.Whether the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay the amount offered by
them as reward?
No, the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 50000 as a
reward because the company made the offer with the prior condition that the
person consuming this capsules should take it according to the terms and
conditions as stated. Kharak Singh consumed the capsules as per the
instructions mentioned by the company for a duration of 10 months. He felt
heavily relying on this capsules. He encountered bodily changes due to stop
consuming capsules.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
1.1 Whether the respondent being a minor is eligible to contract and can
sue for breach of contract?
Section 11 of Indian Contract Act talks about who are competent to
contract-
Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority
according to the law which is subject to who is of sound mind and is
not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.

It explains the requirements of competency for entering into contracts

Individuals or entites can create contracts only if they meet their
requirements and one of them is majority age.
The rational behind the section11 is that all all parties to the contract
must be competent to understand their obligation and for that mature
mind is important . For this purpose the law prohibts with minor
parties. In India the Indian Majority act 1875 declares the age of
majority of all person to be 18 years and if a minor has a guardian or
court of ward looking after him/her. The age majority becomes 21
years.
It is usually termed as void as well as void ab intio. The term void in
law means which has no legal effect and ab intio is a latin term which
mean from the beginning.
CASE – MOHORI BIBEE v/s DHARMODAS GHOSH
Facts- Plantiff Dharma Das Ghosh was the minor mortgagte his
property to defendant a money lender .At that time defendents
attorney had the knowledge about plantiff s age. The plantiff later
paid only Rs 8000 but refused to pay the rest of the money.The
plantiff mother was his next best friend at that time. So he
commenced an action against the defendant saying that at the time of
making contract he was the minor so the contract being a violable.
He is not bound by the say. In the case Mohri Bibbi v/s Dhurniods
Ghosh .the final decision that was passed by the council was –
(i) Any sort of contract with the minor or infant or void/ void ab
initio
(ii) Since the minor was the incompetent to make such motorguage
. Hence the contract such made or commenced shall also be
void and is not valid in eyes of law
(iii) The minor that is Dhurniods Ghosh can’t be forced to give
back the amount of money that was advanced to him because
 he was not bound by the promise that was executed in the
contract. Therefore it is humbly submitted before the
honourable court that the court should not entertain this case
since there is not contract between the parties.
Therefore any sort of contract within the minor or infant is
void and void ab initio.
Relying on the judgement on the above mentioned case
contract with minor is not valid. Hence there is no valid
contract between Kharak Singh and company and there is no
breach of trust.
1.2 Whether there was intention to create legal relationship?
For a contract to be formed the following 5 criteria must be followed-
 Valid offer
 Valid acceptance
 Consideration
 Intention to create legal relations
 Certaininty of terms
It is the simplest form intention to create legal relation means that
the parties must intend to enter into a legally binding arrangement
in which the right and obligations of the argument are
enforceable. It is one of the necessary element in formation of a
contract. It is because the intention to create legal relations consist
of readiness of a party to accept the legal sequences of having
extended into a agreement. With no intention to create legal
relations , it may cause the contracting parties are not being
legally binding and this circumstances is enforceable. Without
intention to create the contract may become a mere promise and
can lack the binding affect.

CASE-BALFOUR v/s BALFOUR

FACT- The husband took the wife to England from sri lanka .the
husband had to return but the wife stated for medical reason. He
promise to pay her 30 € per month until his return. When he fail to
pay the wife sued the husband .wife action failed because there is
no consideration moved from her and there is no intention to
create legally binding agreement found. The court stated in
 husband and wife case is burden of proof on the plantiff intention
to create legally binding contracts.

Therefore the words in the advertisement to pay 50000 was a

mere puff nor any intention and it never showed any intention to
create legal relation.

2.1Whether the language in advertisement regarding the reward was meant

to be a promise or was a mere puff?
The advertisement was given in the reputed newspaper and other media
channels. On December 1 2013 clamming about the benefit of maggots-M
capsules and for the published advertisement on June 15 2014 claiming that
it would pay Rs 50000 to any one who get sick after using these capsules
according to the instructions provided that one capsule a day and this offer is
not retrospectively applicable.
In the case vague advertisement language regarding the payment of any
rewards is generally puff which carries no enforceability. in the
advertisement the defendant now where mentioned about the deposit in
advance for the reward which leads to lack of seriousness about it. The
defendant did not show any sincerity, so there offer is not a promise but just
a sale puff with no intention to pay the reward.
CASE- CARLILL v CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY
FACT- The company had deposited the amount 100 euro with the alliance
bank reagent street showing a sincerity in the matter and I was said that 100
euro reward will be paid by the carbolic smoke company to any person who
contract the increasing epidemic influenza or any disease cause by taking
medicine.
The respondent in the case intended to advertise it as a sale puffery .
So the respondent is not liable for the breach of contract because of non
existence of valid contract . therefore there is jo ground on which the
appellant can claim for the reward.

PRAYER
Wherefore in consideration of the abovementioned, it is prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to:
 Dismiss the Appeal
And hold, adjudge and declare that:
1.That the contract is invalid .
2.that the appellant being a minor is incompetent to contract therefore there is
no contract, and there is no breach of contract .
3.That the respondent is not liable to pay Rs.50,000as a reward because it was
a mere puff.

And pass any order in the ends of justice, equity and good concise.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED.