MOOT COURT 2017

BY :-

FACULTY OF LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION

JUST FOR REFRENCE (SUBJECT TO PLAGARISM

DO NOT COPY IT)

CASE LAWS AND CITATIONS (FOOTNOTES) HAVE NOT

BEEN INCLUDED THESE ARE ONLY ARGUMENTS BASE

ON LAWS KINDLY SEARCH CASE LAWS AND ADD

FOOTNOTES.

KINDLY DO NOT COPY ITS JUST FOR REFRENCE AND IT IS SUBJECTED TO

PLAGARISM
 MOOT COURT 2017

ROLL NO :-

BEFORE THE HONBLE CIVIL COURT

IN THE MATTERS OF:

MR. SAM .....PLAINTIFF

V.

TOFFCARSLTD..DEFENDANT NO.01

WITH

MR. TURNERDEFENDANT NO.02

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. ___ OF ___

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE DISTRICT CIVIL COURT UNDER SEC. 9 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE,
 MOOT COURT 2017

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 MOOT COURT 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Index of Authorities..

2. Statement of Jurisdiction..

3. Statements of Facts

4. Issues Raised.

5. Summary of Arguments...

6. Body of Arguments..

7. Prayer

iv
 MOOT COURT 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES & ACTS

The Indian Contract Act

The Code of Civil Procedure

BOOKS & ARTICLES

N.D. Kapoor, Mercantile Law

Write few books of Indian Contract act and Civil Procedure Code with authors.

CASES

WEBSITES

www.Manupatra.com

www.IndiaKanoon.com

www.Legalservices.com

www.AdvocateKhoj.com

v
 MOOT COURT 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff has approached this Honble Court under Sec.9 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 in

form of a civil application in civil court.

Sec.9 of CPC.:- Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .- The Courts shall (subject to the

provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil nature excepting suits

of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation 1.As suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a

civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions

as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation IlFor the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are

attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a

particular place.

vi
 MOOT COURT 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On Monday, June 5th at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Turner, M.D. of Toffscar Ltd. Sent a offer to

Mr. Sam, a regular customer for selling him a rare vintage car for Rs.50,000.

2. Mr.Sam sends a telex accepting the offer at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, june 6th.

3. Mr. Turner fails to notice the telex and during the day he receives another offer of

Rs.60,000 for the same car by Mr. Sober.

4. Mr. Turner telexes a revocation to Mr.Sam on evening knowing that his office is

closed between 5:00 p.m. 9:30 a.m.. Mr. Sam receives the revocation telex at 9:00

a.m. on Wednesday, june 7th.

5. Mr. Turner receives Mr. Sams telex at 9:30 a.m. on june, 07th .

6. Mr.Tirner refuses to sell the car to Mr.Sam.

vii
 MOOT COURT 2017

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the offer given by defendant and acceptance communicated by the Plaintiff

were valid as per Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

Whether the revocation of Offer done by the Defendant was as per the provisions of

Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

Whether there was a contact formed between the plaintiff and the defendant and

whether it was breached ?

viii
 MOOT COURT 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the offer given by defendant and acceptance communicated by the

Plaintiff were valid as per Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

Yes, the offer given by the defendant is valid offer under sec. 2(a) of The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the acceptance communicated by the Plaintiff
is also valid under Sec. 2(b) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2. Whether the revocation of Offer done by the Defendant was as per the
provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

No, the revocation of offer is not valid as per the provisions of The Indian
Contract Act, as it is not done as per the provision of sec. 5 Revocation of
offer under Indian Contract Act.

3. Whether there was any breach of contract on behalf of Defendant as per The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get
damages?

Yes, there was breach of Contract on behalf of defendant as the Plaintiff is

ready to fulfil his obligation but the defendant has revoked the contract
against the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and therefore
Plaintiff is entitled to get damages from Defendant.

9
 MOOT COURT 2017

BODY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the offer given by defendant and acceptance communicated by the

Plaintiff were valid as per Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

Yes, the offer given by the defendant is valid offer under sec. 2(a) of The Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and the acceptance communicated by the Plaintiff is also valid
under Sec. 2(b) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Section 2(a) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines an offer as, a proposal made by
one person to another to do an act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes
the offer is known as the promisor or offer or and the person to whom an offer is
made is known as the promisee or the offeree.

Determination of an Offer (Test of an offer)

Every proposal made by an offeror is not legally regarded as an offer. Three tests are
applied to determine whether or not an offer has actually been made:
1. Does the offer show a clear intention on the part of the offeror to be bound by it.
2. Whether the proposal is definite?
3. Whether the offer is communicated to the offeror?

Hence in the present case all the requisites of a valid offer are being fulfilled hence it
was a valid offer.

A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer. When the person to
whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted
(Sec. 2(b) of the Indian contract act Thus, acceptance of the offer must be absolute
and unqualified. It cannot be conditional.

10
 MOOT COURT 2017

Sec.4 of The Indian Contract Act :- Communication of Acceptance

The communication of an acceptance is complete:-
(i) as against the proposer, when it is put in the course of transmission to him, so as to be
out of the power of the acceptor to withdraw, and
(ii) as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror.

As per the clause it states when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror the acceptance is
communicated but in the present case the plaintiff accepted the offer from the same medium
through which offer was sent but it was negligence on part of the Defendant that he didnt
saw the telex and before accepting the offer of another party Plaintiff had already accepted
the offer therefore in the present case the communication of acceptance on part of Plantiff
was done as per Indian Contract Act,1872.

Therefore both the Offer and Acceptance are valid as per the provisions of The Indian
Contract Act in the present case and hence it formed a valid contract between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant and both are bound to fulfil their obligations.

11
 MOOT COURT 2017

2. Whether the revocation of Offer done by the Defendant was as per the provisions

of Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?

No, the revocation of offer is not valid as per the provisions of The Indian Contract

Act, as it is not done as per the provision of sec. 5 i.e. Revocation of offer under

Indian Contract Act,1872.

Revocation of a proposal

According to Sec.5 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 proposal may be revoked at

any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the

proposer, but not afterwards.

In the present case the acceptance was already communicated to the Defendant by the

Plaintiff therefore after acceptance the defendant cannot revoke the offer as per the

provision of The Indian Contract Act,1872.

Therefore the revocation of offer done by the Defendant in the present case is not

valid as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and as the Plaintiff has accepted the offer

and ready to fulfill his obligation even the Defendant is bound to fulfill his obligation

and cannot just revoke his offer to get away from his obligation.

12
 MOOT COURT 2017

3. Whether there was any breach of contract on behalf of Defendant as per The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 and whether plaintiff is entitled to get damages for
breach of Contract ?

Yes, there was breach of Contract on behalf of defendant as it is a valid contract and
the Plaintiff is ready to fulfil his obligation but the defendant has revoked the contract
against the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and therefore Plaintiff is
entitled to get damages from the Defendant.

Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.When a contract has

been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the

party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to

him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or

which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the

breach of it. When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach

is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for

any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course

of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract,

to be likely to result from the breach of it." Such compensation is not to be given for

any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.

Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by

contract.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred

and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is

entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person

had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. When an obligation

13
 MOOT COURT 2017

resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged,

any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same

compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge

it and had broken his contract."

Therefore under section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 1876 it clearly states that

whenever any party to contract denies to fulfill their obligation due to which the other

party suffers the loss, the party who suffers loss specifically because of non

performance of other party obligation, the party who suffered loss is entitled to get

maintenance from the other party.

Hence in the present case as there is a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,

and the Plantiff is ready to fulfill his obligation but as the defendant has not fulfilled his

obligation as he has wrongly revoked the offer against the Indian Contract Act the defendant

will suffer loss as he wont get the vintage car which becomes his legal right arising out of the

contract which will be breached and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to get damages for

breach of legal right arising out of the contract from the Defendant.

14
 MOOT COURT 2017

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,

it is humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare :

1. That the Offer and Acceptance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was valid and

therefore it is a valid contract under The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2. That the revocation of offer done by the Defendant was not valid as per provisions of

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 therefore the contract cannot be revoked.

3. That there was breach of contract on part of Defendant and the Plaintiff is entitled to

get damages or an order should be passed against the Defendant to fulfil his part of

obligation.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and

proper, for this the Plantiff shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PLANTIFF

15