RESPONDENTS:

ISSUES RAISED :a) Whether Sanga (the respondent) will have to reimburse or indemnify the
appellant (providence) for saving GARUM from any unforeseen contingent risk
despite the appellants having full knowledge of the inbuilt fire mechanisms of
GARUM?
b) Whether the due profits accrued to SANGA because of GARUM in LULU be
unjustly shared with the appellants (providence) just because of their dousing
the flames on GARUM? Whether the act of dousing the flames by the
appellants is of gratuitous nature under the law or not?
c) Whether the introduction of karpush language as a medium of instruction to
the native speakers of karpush nadu is a violation of article 29 and article 30 of
the constitution of tototia?
d) Whether the introduction of monita and janon languages to the non-native
speakers in karpush nadu amounts to the violation of article 21 thereby
defeating the provision of linguistic and minorities act under the constitution
of tototia?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDa) Issue 1: Ordinance

As a matter of fact, the appellants being a competition rival to the
respondents and very well aware of the fact that the oil tanker owned by the
respondents by name GARUM having been attacked by a small tiny spark
near-by attracted the attention of the appellants and though the timely step
which had doused the flames is appreciated on the ground that any man of
ordinary prudence would have done the same. The viable option would have

been to stay aloof as they had sufficient knowledge about the functional and
sophisticated mechanism about GARUM.
ISSUE 2:
The principal available under contract law is that no person can unjustly enrich
himself at the cost of others (Doctrine of unjust enrichment under quasi contracts).
Just because the appellants had taken precautionary measures (Very well aware of
the functional mechanism of GARUM) , that doesnt mean that the profits accrued by
SANGA by GARUM in the land of LULU will have to be reimbursed to the appellants
on the fact that the profits survived by GARUM in LULU owed to their gratuitous act
of the appellants which is impervious under the law. Hence, the respondents are not
in a position to reimburse the profits and costs incurred by SANGA to the appellants.
ISSUE 3:
The Tototian constitution upholds the view that All languages are equally distinct by
themselves and no language is superior or inferior to any other. In connection with
the issue raised, the introduction of the karpush language to the native speaker of
the karpush nadu indirectly denotes that the very dominant karpush speaking people
hold their language in high esteem and hence wish to incorporate the same school
curriculum as a matter of fact is a clear violation of article 29 and 30 of the
constitution which speaks of cultural and educational rights in toto.
Education imparts or imbibes the culture in every human being and discriminating on
the aspect of language is not only against the law but also flabbergasting.

ISSUE 4:
Very well in the connection of the issue raised, art. 21 indirectly includes the right to
education and any discrimination in this regard with the tone and vigour of nonnative speakers gaining more connection to speak the official languages (monita and

janon) is just in a way preaching to the choir. In this connection, art. 19 under the
tototia constitution can be invoked for the simple reason discrimination of languages
for native speakers and on the other hand discrimination for the same for non-native
speakers is a violation under the above mentioned article because:
The State can never discriminate people of various linguistic groups on the basis of
nativity and regional linguistic classification. This denotes the indirect meaning of
language sovereignty in the constitutional arena of Tototia. Hence, it is also a
violation of Article 21 under the constitution of Tototia.