2ND INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL

BEFORE THE LD. CIVIL JUDGE OF

DISTRICT COURT AT DELHI

(UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. KHARAK SINGH

…………PETITIONER

V.

COCKROCH (P.) LTD. COMPANY

…………RESPONDENT

(MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………………………..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………….

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION

1. Co. – Company.
2. FDA – Food and Drug MNC – Multinational Corporations.
3. Administration.
4. FSSAI – Food Safety and Standard Authority of India.
5. Ltd – Limited.
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1.INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006

BOOKS

1. KRITI SHARMA, LAW OF CONTRACT, LEXIS NEXIS, WADHWA,

NAGPUR
2. R. K BANGIA, LAW OF CONTRACT, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY
3. Collins, Hugh (2003). The Law of Contract: Law in Context (4th ed.).
London: LexisNexis BUTTERWORTHS

JOURNALS

1. Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) 1 QB 256

2. BBC: CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL MARCH(2003)
3. 1985) 14 Journal of Legal Studies 345

DYNAMIC LINKS:

1. https://www.lawteacher.net/
2. https://www.deakin.edu.au
3. https://www.studocu.com
CASES:

1. Gerhard v Bates, 2 App. Cas. 666, 691

2.Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2008]
3. Williams v Carwardine 4 B. & Ad. 621
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Learned Civil Judge of the District Court at Delhi, has the
inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose the present case by
virtue of its pecuniary jurisdiction, where in Delhi the Court of
Learned Civil Judge has the jurisdiction to try suit in which the
amount claimed does not exceed a sum of Rupees 3 Lakh.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company a MNC based in Delhi gave an

assignment to the Magneta (P.) Ltd, a pharmaceutical Delhi based
company to make a multivitamin capsule called the ‘Maggots-M’.
The Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company claimed that the production of the
capsules were purely for the overall health, well being and vitality of
the men and the capsules are one of the best diet supplements as
the capsules were a unique blend of ginseng, vitamins and minerals.
The company announced in public that by taking one capsule a day it
provides great energy as well as helps to fight tiredness and
enhances stress handling ability. The company thus fixed the price of
each capsules at Rs. 50/-

II

On December 01st 2013, the Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company published

advertisement in the newspapers and other media channels claiming
the number of benefits from the consumption of Maggots-M
capsules. The company further mentioned that these capsules had
not been evaluated by the FDA or the FSSAI in its advertisement.

III

On 15th June 2014, the Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company again published in
the same newspaper and the media claiming that it will pay
Rs.50,000/- to anyone who got sick after using the capsules
according to the instructions provided with it and that was one
capsule a day and was not retrospectively applicable. The reward
was for the person who contracts with increasing fatigue, weakness
or any disease caused by taking the Maggots-M. Such statement was
printed on each pack.

IV

The petitioner saw the advertisement on July 15th 2014 regarding the
Maggots-M capsules. He bought 5 packs of such capsules bearing the
manufactured date and packaging of January 15th 2014 each
containing 60 capsules each. He started consuming as per the
instructions mentioned by the company for exact 10 months but a
week after that he found out that his body was highly relying on
those capsules. He felt many bodily changes and when he stopped
consuming the capsules he suffered from frequent stomach upsets,
severe allergic reactions, difficulty in breathing, tightnes in the chest,
swelling of the mouth, face, lips or tongue, feeling of fatigue and
whole body weakness.

Mr.Kharak Singh discovers that on resuming the consumption of the

capsules as per the instruction he got relief from all bodily changes.

VI

On January 2016 the Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company aggressively raised

the price of the capsules by 50% that would be Rs.75 for each of
those capsules. Mr. Kharak after having firmly ascertained that his
body cannot smoothly work without the capsules and his body
developed an addiction for such capsules he felt himself cheated by
the Cockroach Company as he could not afford such high priced
multivitamins capsule.
 VII

Mr. Kharak Singh therefore claimed Rs.50,000/- and other forms of

damages from the company. The company ignored the claim of Mr.
Kharak. After few days Mr. Kharak Singh sent a legal notice to the
company regarding the same claim of damages. On such notice the
officers of the company replies that if the capsules is taken as per the
instructions then the capsules would cause no harm. They even
required him to come to the company’s office to use the capsules
daily under their supervision to be checked by their doctor. Mr.
Kharak Singh brought a claim to the court to seek justice.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the petition claimed by the petitioner is maintainable in

the court of law or not, and will the Company be liable to pay the
compensation?

2. Whether there was a contract between the respondent and the

claimant?

3. Whether the capsules ‘Maggots-M’ were approved by the FDA or

the FSSAI?

4. Whether the said multi-vitamin capsules so manufactured by the

said Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company has direct adverse effect to the
health and hygiene of the human being?

5. Whether so far and wide promulgation, publication and

advertisement so made by the company was in fact to misguide the
innocent public with the intention to procure more money from
them?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.Whether the petition claimed by the petitioner is

maintainable under the court of law or not, and will the
company be liable to pay compensation?

Yes, the petition claimed by the petitioner is maintainable in the

court of law and the company is liable to pay compensation.

Firstly , the Respondent i.e., the Cockroch (P.) Ltd Company

published an advertisement in the newspaper and other media
channels that it would pay a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to anyone who
got sick after consuming the capsule according to the instruction set
out in the packet itself.
Mr. Kharak Singh the claimant, believing in the accuracy of the
statement made in the advertisement with respect to efficacy of the
capsules, purchased 5 packets of those capsules and started
consuming one capsule a day as per the instructions mentioned by
the company for 10 months. But after a week he found that his body
was heavily relying on those capsules. He felt many body changes
when stopped consuming those capsules, such as frequent stomach
upset, severe allergic reactions, specially in breathing, tightening of
the chest, swelling of the mouth, face, lips or tongue, feeling of
fatigue and whole body weakness.
Thereupon the claimant wrote a letter to the company stating what
had happened and asking for the claim of Rs. 50,000/- as promised
by the company or the respondent.
Secondly, with the refusal of the claim made by the petitioner,
the respondent has constituted a “Breach of Contract”.
The advertisement was an offer to the world and if anybody accepts
the offer and if it is communicated by the consumer’s action, then it
results in a legal and binding contract. Here the respondent has
openly breached the contract between the consumer and itself by
refusing to fulfill the promise made in the advertisement, because as
soon as Mr. Singh accepted the offer made in the advertisement, the
company is legally bound to fulfill the promises advanced by itself.
2. Whether there was a contract between the respondent
and the claimant?
Yes, there was a valid and a legal contract between the
respondent and the claimant.

No doubt there was an existence of contract between the

respondent and the claimant. The form of contract was a ‘Unilateral
Contract’, the one which is initiated by an offer by one party and can
only be accepted by the performance of the other.
As the Cockroch Company had published an advertisement in the
newspapers and other media channels claiming the number of
benefits from the consumption of the Maggots-M capsules and later
on, in the same newspaper and media channels it claimed to pay Rs.
50,000/- to anyone getting sick after the consumption of the said
capsule.
Mr. Kharak Singh saw the advertisement regarding the Maggot-M
capsules and bought himself 5 packs of those capsules, and started
consuming it. So this means that as soon as he bought those capsules
and started consuming the same he entered into a contract with the
company. Therefore the claimant accepted the offer by performing
what he was required to do. Hence a Unilateral contract was formed
between the company and the claimant.
Therefore it can be construed that unilateral contracts arising out of
offers made to the general public, by means of an advertisement
here, is an offer to every person who is willing to accept the terms
and conditions of it. Acceptance of the offer is communicated by the
consumer’s actions, thus resulting in a legally enforceable and
binding contract. An advertised guarantee (or promise) is a distinct
communication to any person and is to be understood in its plain
meaning so that the public understands it without any difficulty. It
indicates the intention of the one making the advertisement to make
an offer. Any person from the public is free to accept the offer
subjected to its terms and conditions. Thus any person who
consequently accepts the offer provides consideration has
completed the requisite element to create a legally enforceable
contract.
And hence, Mr. Kharak Singh has the right to sue the company for
breach of contract by the company as they were legally bound to
fulfill their promises as soon as the acceptance to their offer was
completed.
3. Whether the capsules ‘Maggot-M’ was approved by the
FDA or FSSAI?

No, the capsules ‘Maggot-M’ was approved by neither the FDA nor
the FFSAI.
The respondent had itself mentioned in the advertisement. Despite
being a multinational company, how could the Cockroch (P.) Ltd
Company lacked to get the approval from the FDA or the FSSAI? This
showed lack of interest and a fraudulent and a profitable motive of
the respondent company while advertising the capsules.
Every layman knows that each and every food products, drugs,
medicines, supplements, multi-vitamins, etc must be the one
approved by the FSSAI.
If the food manufacturing companies starts to manufacture without
regulation and evaluation then that would result in loss of
confidence towards the food and the company as well.
4. Whether the said capsules manufactured by the
Cockroach Company got direct adverse effect to the
health and hygiene of the human being?

Yes, the capsule Maggot-M has got a direct adverse effect to the
health and hygiene of the human beings.

First, the capsules were not evaluated by the FDA or the FSSAI. The
company started advertising in the newspapers and media channels
without the approval of the FSSAI.
Second, thousands of people were relying in the above said capsules
was not even approved by the FDA or FSSAI which makes it clear that
the company was not concerned about the health of the mass. As
per the prevailing law of the country each and every food products
have to be tested and verified by the FSSAI or the FDA to check
whether the food products are acceptable for human consumption
as per its guidelines or not.

Thus FSSAI provides confidence to the people that the products

they buy from the market for consumption will cause no harm and
are protected from any kind of fraud.
But the advertisement made by the company was clear about the
non-approval of the FDA or the FFSAI, so with what purpose and
motive was the company openly selling the capsules.
While manufacturing the capsules did the pharmaceutical company
prepare the capsules with proper composition of the vitamins,
minerals and ginseng for, every drug has to be prepared with proper
composition of its properties and uneven composition may result in
adverse effect of such medicine. Uneven composition of ginseng may
have side effects such as diarrhea, headache, breast or chest
tendering or rapid heartbeat, difficulty in breathing, etc. All of the
above stated symptoms were seen in the health of Mr. Kharak Singh
after the consumption of the said capsules. It is very evident that the
same might have been caused due to the uneven composition and
combination of ginseng and other minerals in the capsule.
The claimant took those capsules for 10 consecutive months. On
stopping the consumption of the capsules for a week he felt many
bodily changes. And again when he started consuming it he could see
that his body would get relief instantly. He now became certain that
his body cannot smoothly function without the capsules and his body
had developed an addiction for such capsules.
Did the capsules contain any other addictive drugs other than the
vitamins, minerals or ginseng? If it is so then is it the strategy of the
company to maximize its sale and earn profit, as once a consumer
becomes an addict then he is likely to repurchase the same and
ultimately the company will seem to enjoy the impact while putting
the health of the mass at stake.
Therefore the capsules Maggot-M, no doubt has an adverse effect on
the health and hygiene of the human being, from various aspects.
5. Whether so far and wide promulgation, publication and
advertisement of the capsules so made by the company
was in fact to misguide the innocent public with the
intention to procure more money from them?
Firstly, as the Respondent is basically a multinational corporation and
we are well aware of the fact that MNC’s intention are always to gain
benefit from each and every fields and aspect and to procure huge
amount of money from the general public.
Secondly, the company has published an advertisement clearly
stating that it would pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to anyone who got
sick after using the capsules according to the instructions provided
with it, that would be one capsule a day and the amount would be
paid by the company to any person who contracts with increasing
fatigue, weakness or any disease caused by taking the Maggot-M
capsules.
But the company fails to generate its promise when the stated event
occurs.
Thus the company’s advertisement was vague and meaningless. The
only motive we see here was to attract the general public and to
render profit from it.
 PRAYER

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited the

petitioner humbly pleads before the Honorable Court that:-

1. That, the petition claimed by the petitioner is maintainable in

the court of law.
2. That, the Cockroach (P.) Ltd Company must pay the
compensatory damages to the petitioner.
3. That, The Cockroach (P.) Ltd Company must be ordered to
evaluate the said capsules under FDA or FSSAI.
4. That, The Cockroach (P.) Ltd Company must be made to pay
exemplary damages for carrying out such misleading
advertisements.

And any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE COUNSEL

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND
FOREVER