Moot Curt.docx

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION (2017-2022)

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF DELHI

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96(1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ,1908

IN THE MATTER OF: KHARAK SINGH …………………………….APPELLANT

v.

COCKROCH (P) Ltd……………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPODENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

       

LIST OF ABBERVIATIONS……………………………………………3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………..6 STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………….7 STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………...10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………11 PRAYER ………………………………………………………………13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

A.I.R

All India Reporter

(P)

Private

Ltd.

Limited

Del.

Delhi

Co

Company

Admin.

Administration

Adv.

Advertisement

Cap.

Capsule

News.

Newspaper

Sec.

Secretary

exp.

Expiry

Rs.

Rupees

MVI

Multi-Vitamins

Sec.

Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION: The Hon’ble High Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Section 96(1) of the code of civil procedure ,1908.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

1. The Cockroch (P) Ltd. a pharmaceutical company based in Delhi, made a multi-vitamin capsule called the “Maggots –M”. 2.The company claimed that these capsules are for overall health, wellbeing and vitality of men and are diet health supplements as they are unique blend ginseng, vitamins and minerals. 3.The company fixed the price of each capsule at Rs.50 and announced in public that taking a capsule per day will give energy and helps to fight against the tiredness. 4.The Cockroch (P) Ltd. published an advertisement in newspaper and media channels on December 01,2013, claiming no. of benefits and conditions like: (a) Provides energy (b) fight against tiredness (c) perfect for overall health (d) strengths body organs (e) enhances quality of life (f) helps to stay fit 5. Capsules are not evaluated by FOOD AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION OF INDIA (FSSAI). 6.Capsule are not made to diagnose, treat , cure or prevent any disease . 7.the disputes regarding the consumption must be subject to jurisdiction courts in Dwaraka Delhi. 8.On 15th june 2014, company further published an advertisement that it would pay Rs.50,000 to the person who got sick after using capsules according to instructions. The statement generated is as under :- “Rs. 50,000/- reward will be paid by the company to any person who contracts with the increasing fatigue, weakness or any disease caused by taking capsules, after having used one capsule a day, according to the printed directions. 9. Mr. Kharak singh aged 15 yrs , suffered from malnutrition , chronic , fatigue syndrome and vitamin deficiency led to muscle weakness . after seeing the adv. kharak singh decided to use it.

10. During jan. 2016, there was an increase in the demand of capsule due to which the company raised the price 50% to 75%. 11. After eating it for 10 months, he found that his body is relying on the capsules and felt a lot of bodily changes and on resuming eating those capsules he got relief. 12. He felt cheated and claimed for reward but company ignored. After which he through his advocate send a legal notice for claiming in which Co replied that the Co has full faith on its product and they want Kharak Singh to consume those capsules in the company and will be checked by the secretary.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES: 1. Whether there is a valid contract between Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. and Kharak Singh? 1.1 Whether the respondent being a minor is eligible to contract and can sue for breach of contract? 1.2 Whether there was intention to create legal relationship? 2. Whether the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay the amount offered by them as reward? 2.1 Whether the language in advertisement regarding the reward was meant to be a promise or was a mere puff?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: 1. Whether there is a valid contract between Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. and Kharak Singh? As the company has not given any offer to the apellant which he can reject or accept therefore there is no contract. It is also said that by Lord J. Lindley said “supposing that the performance of the condition is an acceptance of the offer that acceptance ought to have been notified” The acceptance was not notified .Hence it is not a valid contract. 2.Whether the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay the amount offered by them as reward? No, the Cockroch Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 50000 as a reward because the company made the offer with the prior condition that the person consuming this capsules should take it according to the terms and conditions as stated. Kharak Singh consumed the capsules as per the instructions mentioned by the company for a duration of 10 months. He felt heavily relying on this capsules. He encountered bodily changes due to stop consuming capsules.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

1.1 Whether the respondent being a minor is eligible to contract and can sue for breach of contract? Section 11 of Indian Contract Act talks about who are competent to contractEvery person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law which is subject to who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. It explains the requirements of competency for entering into contracts Individuals or entites can create contracts only if they meet their requirements and one of them is majority age. The rational behind the section11 is that all all parties to the contract must be competent to understand their obligation and for that mature mind is important . For this purpose the law prohibts with minor parties. In India the Indian Majority act 1875 declares the age of majority of all person to be 18 years and if a minor has a guardian or court of ward looking after him/her. The age majority becomes 21 years. It is usually termed as void as well as void ab intio. The term void in law means which has no legal effect and ab intio is a latin term which mean from the beginning. CASE – MOHORI BIBEE v/s DHARMODAS GHOSH Facts- Plantiff Dharma Das Ghosh was the minor mortgagte his property to defendant a money lender .At that time defendents attorney had the knowledge about plantiff s age. The plantiff later paid only Rs 8000 but refused to pay the rest of the money.The plantiff mother was his next best friend at that time. So he commenced an action against the defendant saying that at the time of making contract he was the minor so the contract being a violable. He is not bound by the say. In the case Mohri Bibbi v/s Dhurniods Ghosh .the final decision that was passed by the council was – (i) Any sort of contract with the minor or infant or void/ void ab initio (ii) Since the minor was the incompetent to make such motorguage . Hence the contract such made or commenced shall also be void and is not valid in eyes of law (iii) The minor that is Dhurniods Ghosh can’t be forced to give back the amount of money that was advanced to him because

he was not bound by the promise that was executed in the contract. Therefore it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the court should not entertain this case since there is not contract between the parties. Therefore any sort of contract within the minor or infant is void and void ab initio. Relying on the judgement on the above mentioned case contract with minor is not valid. Hence there is no valid contract between Kharak Singh and company and there is no breach of trust. 1.2 Whether there was intention to create legal relationship? For a contract to be formed the following 5 criteria must be followed Valid offer  Valid acceptance  Consideration  Intention to create legal relations  Certaininty of terms It is the simplest form intention to create legal relation means that the parties must intend to enter into a legally binding arrangement in which the right and obligations of the argument are enforceable. It is one of the necessary element in formation of a contract. It is because the intention to create legal relations consist of readiness of a party to accept the legal sequences of having extended into a agreement. With no intention to create legal relations , it may cause the contracting parties are not being legally binding and this circumstances is enforceable. Without intention to create the contract may become a mere promise and can lack the binding affect.

CASE-BALFOUR v/s BALFOUR FACT- The husband took the wife to England from sri lanka .the husband had to return but the wife stated for medical reason. He promise to pay her 30 € per month until his return. When he fail to pay the wife sued the husband .wife action failed because there is no consideration moved from her and there is no intention to create legally binding agreement found. The court stated in

husband and wife case is burden of proof on the plantiff intention to create legally binding contracts. Therefore the words in the advertisement to pay 50000 was a mere puff nor any intention and it never showed any intention to create legal relation. 2.1Whether the language in advertisement regarding the reward was meant to be a promise or was a mere puff? The advertisement was given in the reputed newspaper and other media channels. On December 1 2013 clamming about the benefit of maggots-M capsules and for the published advertisement on June 15 2014 claiming that it would pay Rs 50000 to any one who get sick after using these capsules according to the instructions provided that one capsule a day and this offer is not retrospectively applicable. In the case vague advertisement language regarding the payment of any rewards is generally puff which carries no enforceability. in the advertisement the defendant now where mentioned about the deposit in advance for the reward which leads to lack of seriousness about it. The defendant did not show any sincerity, so there offer is not a promise but just a sale puff with no intention to pay the reward. CASE- CARLILL v CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY FACT- The company had deposited the amount 100 euro with the alliance bank reagent street showing a sincerity in the matter and I was said that 100 euro reward will be paid by the carbolic smoke company to any person who contract the increasing epidemic influenza or any disease cause by taking medicine. The respondent in the case intended to advertise it as a sale puffery . So the respondent is not liable for the breach of contract because of non existence of valid contract . therefore there is jo ground on which the appellant can claim for the reward.

PRAYER

Wherefore in consideration of the abovementioned, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:  Dismiss the Appeal And hold, adjudge and declare that: 1.That the contract is invalid . 2.that the appellant being a minor is incompetent to contract therefore there is no contract, and there is no breach of contract . 3.That the respondent is not liable to pay Rs.50,000as a reward because it was a mere puff.

And pass any order in the ends of justice, equity and good concise. ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.