[Type text]

May it please your lordship; the Council is appearing on behalf of the appellant
May I proceed with your permission?
Much obliged
For establishing my arguments I would like to start by stating the issues in
question and they are as follows:
1. Whether there was any valid contract between appellant and respondent at
first instance.
2. Whether delayed response to a previously known offer constitutes mala fide
intention from the side of a person.
3. Whether duress (i.e. economic duress) was applied in this particular fact or
not.
4. Whether chance of getting further custom constitutes a valid consideration for
appellant.
5. Whether account settlement between appellant and respondent took place in
fact or not.
6. Whether there was economic duress from Appellant too, as they subsequently
faced credit crunch.
7. Whether Promissory Estoppel could be applied in this particular instance.
Now I will try to prove the issues in favor of the appellant X-treme Ltd.
according to the following issues.
1. That there was a valid contract between the parties at the first instance.
As there was a clear and specific offer and acceptance from both side
party and they rightly entered into a contract with an intention to
create legal obligation so there was a valid contract in the first instance
[Type text]

A leading case in this point is Balfour vs. Balfour. In this case from
analyzing the fact it is found that there was no intention to create legal
obligation that is why the contract could not be enforced.so for a contract to
become enforceable there must be intention to create legal obligation which
is found in the present fact. So there was a valid contract.
2. Whether subsequent response to a previously known offer constitutes
mala fide intention from the side of a person:
Here respondent had claimed the discount package of appellant after losing his
job though he knew of the offer before sometimes. So here a late response of
respondent can be an indication of mala fide intention, i.e. intention to take
advantage of the offer after falling into trouble. So it creates a doubt whether
respondent came with clean hands or not.
Here the fact of clean hand is found in the finding number 2 of the court. So the
prima facie discussion of the argument is directly creating a question on this
particular finding
3. Whether duress (i.e. economic duress) was applied in this particular fact or
not:
The direct consequence is that it renders or invalidates a contract as if there
existed no contract at all. Duress again can be of two types physical duress and
economic duress. Contract Act 1872 of Bangladesh recognizes free consent as
an essential ingredient of a valid contract.so if there is any kind of duress in the
present case that will directly question the validity of the subsequent contract as
there is lack of free consent.
Here from the fact of the case it is clearly reflecting that is there be any duress
in this particular case that is economic duress.
[Type text]

Economic duress may exist even if a person is just narrating his problem or bad
condition to other party to the contract.
Here respondent told appellant over phone that he had lost his job and if they
did not allow him the discount he feared not being able to afford to pay it
otherwise.
This is one kind of duress. Economic duress is present in this case.
Here D and C Builders Ltd. vs. I will like to quote Lord Denning MRs some
wordings here Rees, [1966]

The party was putting undue pressure on the creditor. She was making a threat
to break the contract (by paying nothing) and she was doing it so as to compel
the creditor to do what he was unwilling to do (to accept 300 in settlement):
and she succeeded.
So she applied duress which is not at all acceptable. Economic duress is surely
present in this case. So a promise obtained under duress will have no effect.
4. Whether chance of getting further custom constitutes a valid
consideration for appellant:
Here the point from the second paragraph of the fact it appears that the
possibility of getting further customer as assumed by the area manager of
appellant could be argued as a consideration for the appellant. But here it
appears from the fact that the respondents were not being able to perform his
existing contractual obligation due to losing his job so the hope of getting
further custom from him is vague. So here the subsequent agreement between
the area manager and respondent is nudum pactum (it generally means a
promise without a consideration and it is at nullity)
[Type text]

Price v Easton (1833) - It was held that Price's claim must fail, as he had not
provided consideration.
So there must be some consideration in a contract. Even past consideration is a
good consideration in some cases. An Agreement without a consideration is
void.
So in this particular case there was no consideration at all. And so this
agreement cannot bind the parties in future.
5. Whether account settlement between appellant and respondent took place
in fact or not:
That the lower court did error of fact in deciding the account settlement issue.
The lower court did error of facts and misread the evidences and precedents
sought by the 1st party-appellant in deciding the account settlement issue. The
acceptance of tk. 100000/- is to be regarded as forced acceptance. The fact is
that the 2nd party-respondent offered tk. 100000/- in full settlement and if the
1st party-appellant did not accept, the money would not be repaid. And for that
after acceptance the previous amount the appellant wrote back that the account,
i.e., the document of transaction had been already settled and the respondent has
to pay the remaining one-off debt as early as possible. But as the respondent
didnt do so and also for the downturn in business the 1st party-appellant filed
the original suit against the 2nd party-respondent. Therefore, this appeal is to be
allowed and the order of the lower court is liable to be set aside.
6. Whether there was economic duress from appellant too, as they subsequently
faced credit crunch :
Here from the analysis of point 3. of the argument it is shown that there was
economic duress on part of respondent so the matter of economic duress in the
case of appellant is immaterial. Then again from point number 6 it is clear that
[Type text]

the account had not been settled and appellant was not bound by their promise.
So the point of economic duress on part of respondent is totally immaterial.

7. Whether Promissory Estoppel could be applied in this particular instance:
Here the doctrine of promissory estoppel as applied in many leading cases will
not be applicable at all.
The main fact is part payment of a debt in satisfaction of the full cannot
disentitle the creditor to claim the full. This was found in Pinnels case.
In the judgment it was said that payment of a lesser sum on the day in
satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it
appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to
the plaintiff for a greater sum
The traditional application of the doctrine as found in the
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB
130 or the High Trees case is not applicable to this fact.
So here respondent was not entitled to the benefit of promissory estoppel as it
was a case of one off debts. As the appellant were creditors for the remaining
2lachs, mere promise or statement cannot make them bound to comply with it.
Prayer:
Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed before the honorable Court that it may be graciously
pleased to:
That the appellant might get the contract performed by the respondent and
The respondent should make bound to pay them the respective money in issue.
[Type text]