Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Competition 2015
MR. FOSTER.PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.7
III
STATEMENT OF FACTS.8-9
IV
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..10
SUMMARY OF ISSUES..11
VI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.12-22
1 WHETHER THERE IS BREACH OF CONTRACT? ...12-16
1
VII
PRAYER23
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF ABBREVATIONS AND SYMBOLS
S.NO.
ABBREVIATION
DEFINITION
1.
AI
Artificial Intelligence
2.
AIR
All
Allahabad
4.
AP
Andhra Pradesh
5.
Art.
Article
6.
Bom
Bombay
7.
Cal
Calcutta
8.
Ch
Chapter
9.
Co.
Company
10.
Ed.
Edition
11.
Govt.
Government
12.
HC
13.
Honble
Honorable
14.
ICA
15.
i.e.
That is
16.
Ker
Kerala
17.
Ltd.
Limited
18.
Mad
Madras
19.
No.
Number
20.
Ors.
Others
21.
p.
Page
22.
Para
Paragraph
23.
Pvt.
Private
24.
SC
25.
&
And
26.
v.
Versus
CASE LAWS
S.NO.
1.
2.
3.
PAGE
FOOTNOT
NO.
E NO.
17
17
20
33
13
CASE
CITATION
Atlantic Mutual
15.
16.
17.
18.
13
14
AIR (1876)
14
11
AIR 1952 VP 51
18
24
18
25
20
32
13
13
14
18
26
14
11
14
14
13
14
14
10
19.
13
20.
Gopalrao v. Kallappa
14
21.
Gherulal v. Mahadeo
14
13
14
10
18
25
18
26
13
14
10
15
16
22.
23.
24.
Harikrishna Pilai v.
Authilachmy Ammal.
Jessop and Co Ltd v.
25.
26.
27.
v. K. Rangappa Baliga
and Co.
Khemchand Manekchand
v. Dayaldas Bassarmal
Loon Karan v. John and
Laxmanlal v. Mulshankar
14
29.
Laidlaw v. Organ,
15
15
18
21
14
11
91 IC 622
14
10
14
11
13
17
18
19
27
14
12
14
14
(1913) 1 KB 103
17
17
18
23
21
36
14
13
(1941) AC 251
14
14
12
14
14
(1900) 1QB513
21
35
Mackinnon Mackenzie
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Ali
Prager v. Blatspiel, Stamp
ER Rep 524
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Wallis v. Pratt
20
30
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The learned District Court of Dwarka exercises jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate the present suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
The provision under which the Plaintiff has approached this Honble Court and
to which the Plaintiff humbly submit is read herein under as:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I
REQUIRMENT OF LAPTOP
Mr. Foster (aged 16 yrs.) is the student of a multi-media course in NCT institute a
premiere institute of computer education. The Course prescribed the requirement for
laptop. The Institute specified the configuration/specifications for laptop to pursue such
course.
II
PLACING THE ORDER
Mr. Foster (for pursuing such course) traced an e-commerce website on the internet
named as quickmart.com, a private company renowned as a leading destination for online
shopping in India which deals with sale of fresh electronic computer items like laptop,
desktop, printers etc. He saw different models of laptop on such e-commerce website and
placed an order thereafter for the laptop that suits his requirement prescribed by the
Institute. The order was based on Cash on-Delivery system
III
CONFUSION IN TRANSACTION
The company at the time of giving the confirmation order delivered the description of the
other laptop model sent through companys email address to Mr. Fosters email address.
In addition, there was a telephonic conversation between a companys executive named as
Mr. Gopal and Mr. Foster regarding the consent of buying and delivering the laptop at the
desired destination. As a matter of practice and in order to avoid confusion in the contract,
the entire conversation was recorded by the company. Thereafter, the laptop was delivered
to him in a couple of days at his desired destination through Speedy Class Couriers and he
made the payment accordingly. While checking the configuration of the laptop, he found
that it was a mismatch from what he had ordered, and therefore, defeating the purpose for
which he wanted to have the laptop i.e. rendering the laptop unfit for pursuing his
computer course.
IV
COMPLAINT BY MR. FOSTER
Mr. Foster lodged a complaint on the customer care of the website named as
quickmart.com and narrated the whole facts. The customer care department of such ecommerce website, after a few days, called Mr. Foster that after the investigation they
found that the order and the product delivered are of the same configuration. In addition
to this, the e-commerce website named as quickmart.com said that they will look into the
matter again and get back as soon as possible.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THERE IS BREACH OF CONTRACT?
1.1
1.2
THAT
THE
CONTRACT
HAS
BEEN
BREACHED
2.2
THAT
THE
ACTS
OF
THE
AGENT
WERE
AUTHORIZED
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT THE CONTRACT IS VALID AND HAS BEEN BREACHED
The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a valid Agreement with a lawful
consideration and free consent, and it has not been expressly declared to be void. Since it
meets all the essentials mentioned under ICA 1872, the contract stands valid. However,
the contract is breached by the Defendants because of failure of fulfillment of the
promise made by them. The contract is thus discharged by breach.
According to Section 226 of the ICA, 1872 contracts entered into through an Agent, and
obligations arising from acts done by an Agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and
will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts
done by the Principal in person. That means the Principal is bound by the acts of the
Agent.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THERE IS BREACH OF CONTRACT?
11
12
observed by the Supreme Court that If it can be shown that the party defrauded has at
any time after knowledge of the fraud either by express words or by unequivocal acts
affirmed the contract, his election is determined forever. The part defrauded may keep
the question open so long as he does nothing to affirm the contract. 2 The provision is not
applicable to a concluded contract when the party challenging it had voluntarily chosen to
implement it knowing all the relevant facts and circumstances.
In the instant case, even after knowing the fraud, the Plaintiff did not wish to declare the
contract void and wanted to go through with it. Thus, the contract stands valid.
3) COMPETENT TO CONTRACT: Section 11 of the ICA, 1872 states Every person is
competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to law to which he is
subject and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to
which he is subject
The Plaintiff is a minor and thus he is incompetent to contract, however, there is an
exception to this law which states that a minor can enter into Contracts of Necessaries.
According to Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, Necessaries supplied to minor
should be suited to his condition in life. It does not mean bare necessities of the life but
means such things may be necessary to maintain a person according to his condition in
life. In Kunwarlal v. Surajmal3, it has been held that the house given to a minor on rent for
living and continuing his studies is deemed to be supply of necessaries suited to the
minors condition in life. Similarly, The Plaintiff can purchase a laptop as required by his
course and the contract he enters into cannot be held void.
Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant No.1 are of unsound mind or are disqualified by
the law to contract. Hence, the both the parties are competent to contract.
1 A.L. Mustaneer Establishment v. Varuna Overseas (P) Ltd, AIR1998 72Del LT 186; Santha kumara
v. Lakshmiammal, AIR 2004 2CTC 259 TN; Bhaurao Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra AIR2005 7 SCC
605
2 Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hirekurbar, AIR 1968 SC 956, 958: 1968 2 SCR 797,800-1: 1968
2 SCA 97
3 AIR 1982 Cal 562
13
under Section 2(d) as:When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other
person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises
to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called
consideration.
The consideration or object to an Agreement is lawful, unless:i) It is forbidden by law4
ii) Is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law 5, or is
fraudulent6; or
iii) Involves or implies, injury to the person of another7;
iv) The court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy8
In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an Agreement is said to be unlawful.
Every Agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
In the instant case, the consideration Cash on Delivery is to be considered past
consideration, which constitutes as a valid consideration as per the ICA, 1872
5)
4Boistrub Charan v. Wooma Charm (1889) 16 Cal 436; Kateshwar Mittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa
Baliga and Co., AIR 1959 SC 781: (1969) 2 SCA 342; Ajit Singh v. Kakbhir Singh, AIR 1992 P & H
193; Denzyl Winston Ferries v. Abdul Jaleel, AIR 1992 AP 246: (1992) 2 Andh LT 144; Raj Kumar
Tajendra Singh v. DrSital Raj Mehta, AIR 1998 1 Raj LR 523; Gopal Lal v. BabuLal, AIR 2004 4 CLT
161 Raj DB.
5Sunder Singh v. Kishen Chand, AIR 1889 Punj Rec 1; Dula Raj v. Akhey Raj, AIR 1952 Ajm
38;Laxmanlal v.Mulshankar AIR 1908 32Bom 449
6Atamal Ramooma v. Deepchand Kessurmal, AIR 1939 Sind 33
7 Ram Sarup v. BansiMandar, AIR 1915 42 Cal 742
8Baivijli v. Nansa Nagae AIR 1885 10 Bom 152
9Gopalrao v. Kallappa AIR 1901 3 Bom LR 164
10 Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani, ILR 1942 All 810
14
11Electrosteel Castings Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd, (2005) 1 CHN 612 (Cal);Khemchand Manekchand v.
Dayaldas Bassarmal ;Mohammed v. Ona Mohd Ebrahim ,AIR 1922 Upper Burma 9; Harikrishna Pilai
v. Authilachmy Ammal. AIR 1916 Lower Burma 51 ; Nur Ali Dubash v. Abdul Ali, ILR (1892) 19 Cal
765, 773
12Coringa Oil Co v. Keogler, (1876) 1 Cal 466, 468-69 ; Munshi Amir Ali v. Inderjit Koer, AIR 1871
9 Bengal LR 460 ; Anant Das v. Ashburner & Co, AIR 1876; Ma Ywest v. Chin Mutual Life
Insurance Co Ltd, 91 IC 622
13Scammel v .Ousten, (1941) AC 251
14Gherulal v. Mahadeo, AIR 1959 2 SCA 342
15Chowgule & Co. Ltd V. Rizvi Estates and Houses (P) Ltd, AIR 1997 4 Bom CR 468; Sharam
VirKalra v. Ravinder Kumar, AIR 1995 2 Punj LR 257; Union Bank of India v. VithalBhai, AIR 2002
Cal 144
16Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. 178 (1817)
15
Therefore, it is submitted before the Honble court that the Defendant No.1 is liable for
breach of contract in the instant case.
16
It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 is liable for the acts of the Defendant No.2 as
Defendant No.1 is the Principal and Defendant No.2 is its Agent. This submission of the
Plaintiff is twofold:
2.1 THAT AN AGENT ACTS ON BEHALF OF HIS PRINCIPAL.
In the instant case Defendant No. 2 is the Agent of the Defendant No.1. Section 182 of
the ICA, 1872 defines Agent as a person employed to do any act for another person or
to represent another person in dealing with the third person. The Defendant No.1 itself
told the Plaintiff that it outsources its products from the private retailers as Agents of the
company. So the Defendant No.1 had accepted that Mr. Rattan is their Agent. Explaining
the definition of Agent as stated in Section 182 of the Act, Dhavan J. observed17 :
According to this definition, an Agent never acts on his own behalf but always on
behalf of another. He either represents his Principal in any transactions or dealings
with a third person, or performs an act for Principal. In either case, the act of the
Agent will be deemed in law to be not his own but of the Principal. The crucial test
of the status of an Agent is that his acts binds the Principal.
The concept of vicarious liability is based on the Principle of quit facia per alium facit
per se i.e. one who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself. As it is
17Loon Karan v. John and Co. , AIR 1967 All 308, 311.
17
That the courses he took was necessary in the sense that it was in the circumstances the
ii.
18Sims and Co. v. Midland Rly Co, (1913) 1 KB 103; Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co v. Huth, (1879)
16 Chd 474, 481 (CA)
19Prager v. Blatspiel, Stamp and Heacock Ltd, (1924) 1 KB 566, (1924) All ER Rep 524.
20Para 8, P 4
21Chella Ballayya v. Kanuparthi Subbayya, AIR 1917 40 Mad 1171, AIR 1918 Mad 24, 44 IC 813.
22Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. v. LongMoir and Co., (1881) 5 Bom 584.
23 Ibid.
18
20
36 (1900) 1QB513
37AIR 1960 Mad. 520
23
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and cases cited it is most humbly prayed
before this Honble CourtA. To declare that the Defendants have breached the Contract.
B. To award consideration provided by the Plaintiff to Defendant for the Laptop.
C. To award compensation for mental pain and agony.
Or grant such other relief as the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KIDNESS THE DEFENDANT SHALL DUTY BOUND
EVER PRAY
24