IN THE CODE: 52

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

Special Leave Petition

HPC Ltd. & Anr. ……………………………………….……………. APPELLANT

VERSES

Steve Rovers ……………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT JUDGES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) LIST OF ABBREVATIONS………………….………………………..………………….3

2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………......…………………………….....4

3) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….......6

4) STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………...............7

5) STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………..….....………9

6) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT FOR SLP NO. 1920/ 2018 ………..…………………….10

7) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR SLP NO. 1920/ 2018 ……………………………….12

8) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT FOR WRIT PETITION NO. 2302/ 2018 ……………..22

9) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR WRIT PETITION NO. 2302/ 2018……………….23

10) PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...26

11) BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………….……………………...…27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

ANR Another

ART. Article

FIR First Information Report

H.C High Court

HON’BLE Honorable

J. Justice

LJ Law Journal

SEC. Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

S.C Supreme Court

ORS Others

V. Versus

& And

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1.

BOOKS REFERRED

 Pandey J.N., Constitutional Law of India (Ed.54th 2017).

 Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional law (Ed.6th 2012).

 V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Ed.11th 2015).

 R.K.Bangia, Law of Contract – I (Ed.6th 2009)

 Avatar Singh, Law of Contract & Specific Relief (Ed.12th 2017)

 Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ed.2nd 2003)

 Macmillan English Dictionary (Ed.2nd 2007)

 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Ed.6th 2014)

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (Ed. 35th 2017).

 Amber Chisholm, The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Ed.20th2015).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

STATUTES

 Constitution of India, 1950

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
 Contempt of Court Act, 1971

BOOKS

 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of Sind (13th Ed. 2001)

 M.P. Jain, Sind Constitutional Law (7th Ed.2014)
 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India
 Garner, Bryan A and Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary(8th Ed. 2004)
 Pandey J.N., Constitutional Law of India (Ed.54th 2017).
 R.K.Bangia, Law of Contract – I (Ed.6th 2009)
 Avatar Singh, Law of Contract & Specific Relief (Ed.12th 2017)
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Law Of Torts (Vol. Ii 27th Edition)

JOURNALS, ESSAYS &ARTICLES

 Reuben Hasson, The Special Nature of the Insurance Contract: A comparison of the
American and English Law of Insurance, (1984) 47 Mod LR 523

WEBSITES REFERENCE

 www.lexisnexisacademic.com

 www.manupatra.com

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

 www.indiakanoon.org

 www.scconline.com

 www.indlawinfo.org

 www.legalserviceIndia.com

 www.macmillandictionary.com

 www.scdecision.in

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Special Leave Petition of 2018

The respondent approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard under Special Leave Petition
Article 136 of the Constitution of Asnard against the Judgment of the High Court of Westeros
which dismissed the suit on the grounds of insufficient merit.

Article 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of Sind.

(2) Nothing in this clause(1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed
forces.1

1
The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136.
7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

1. Healing Hand Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (HPC), a company owned by Mr. Tony Snark,
managed in the Democratic State of Asnard, enjoys monopoly with regard to the
production of capsule ‘Lobanza’.
2. Mr.Steve Rovers, and Mr. Tony Snark are childhood friends. Mr. Rovers made his own
machine ‘Labzo-Pharma Tech’(LPT). The machine helped the pharmaceutical industry to
increase the production of medicines by five times and at a cheaper rate.
3. In March 2017, Mr. Snark planned to buy a LPT machine. He purchased the LPT
machine on 4th June, 2017.
4. On 14th August, 2017 HssPC Ltd entered into an agreement with Mr. Rovers regarding
the purchase of three more LPT machines. Mr. Rovers accepted the terms of agreement
and informed that he would ensure the delivery in five days. Mr. Snark was advised by a
collegue of Mr. Rovers to get a routine checkup done to which Mr. Snark gave his assent.
5. HPC received the delivery of the LPT machines after nine days. Mr. Snark did not show
any apprehension on the delay and made the payment of $30 million immediately.
6. A week before 14th August,2017, Mr. Rovers received a report from the Auditor
highlighting certain patent defects in the machines, but due to rising demand of the
machines Mr. Rovers ignored the report and failed to disclose it to HPC Ltd.
7. HPC Ltd faced problems with the LPT machines and on 22nd October, 2017 all the
machines malfunctioned. Mr. Steve appointed Mr. Rovers and his technical team for
repair. Few instances of illness were also reported but none was serious.
8. Mr. Pablo Escocar was a resident of a small district named Riverrun, and was prone to
smoking and drugs. He saw an advertisement of Lobanza capsule on the side of the road
and as a result bought the capsule and started using it. He however, did not stop smoking.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

9. Mr. Escocar died after eight days of consumption of the capsule. His wife Mrs. Amy
Santiago was pregnant and went into mental trauma as Mr. Pablo was the sole bread
earner of the house.
10. Mr. Snark accused Mr. Steve of fraud and initiated civil proceedings against him for
breach of contract. Mr. Snark also asked Ms. Amy to join the suit against him. Ms. Amy
joined the suit willingly. HPC availed the Doctrine of Restitution and prayed for a
compensation of $100M.
11. The Supreme Court on 22nd June 2018 transferred the case to the High Court of Westeros
but the hon’ble Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it lacked sufficient merit.
Aggrieved, HPC Ltd appealed before the Supreme Court of Asnard.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[ISSUE 1] Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872?

[ISSUE 2] Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 was voidable at the option of Mr. Tony
Snark?

[ISSUE 3] Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her
husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

[ISSUE 4] Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service provider of LPT Machines,
is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract?

10

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of

the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

That it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that fraud was
not committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. There
was no provision in the contract which called for a duty to speak, and therefore the respondent is
not in breach of law by maintaining silence. In order for fraud to be proven, one of the most
important essential is the intention to deceive, which was not present in this case as the
respondent had fulfilled all his obligations under the contract. Therefore, fraud was not
committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

II. Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 was voidable at the option
of Mr. Tony Snark?

That it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that the contract
dated 14th of August 2017 was voidable at the option of Tony Snark. When the delay in the
delivery caused the stipulated time to run out, Mr. Tony Snark had an option to void the contract,
but he chose not to. Therefore, the contract dated the 14th of August 2017 was voidable at the
option of Mr. Tony Snark.

III. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the
death of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that Mr. Steve Rovers
is not liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her husband and her subsequent loss of
livelihood. Since in causation, the legal maxim causa proxima et non remota spectatur says the

11

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

near cause is looked into in law, not the remote one. Considering that the circumstances under
which the death of Mr. Pablo Escocar happened were remote to the cause of action carried out by
Mr. Steve Rovers, therefore Mr. Rovers will not be liable to compensate Ms. Amy Santiago for
the death of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood.

IV. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service provider of
LPT Machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of
contract?

Mr. Steve Rovers is not liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract. When the
petitioner had shown a delay in the delivery of goods, Mr. Tony Snark had an option to void the
contract, but he chose not to. The respondent provided the chance for the petitioner to check the
machines at every step of the process, which was waived off by the petitioner. The petitioner also
used the machines to make medicines that had a different chemical composition than the capsule
it was meant to be manufactured for. Therefore, due to the abnormal use of product, Mr. Steve
Rovers is not liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract.

12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[ISSUE- 1] Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872?

That it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that fraud was
not committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. There
was no provision in the contract which called for a duty to speak, and therefore the respondent is
not in breach of law by maintaining silence. [A] In order for fraud to be proven, one of the most
important essential is the intention to deceive, which was not present in this case as the
respondent had fulfilled all his obligations under the contract. [B] Therefore, fraud was not
committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

A. THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE DUTY TO SPEAK,

AND THEREFORE THE RESPONDENT IS NOT IN BREACH OF LAW BY
MAINTAINING SILENCE.
That it is most humbly submitted that the duty to disclose when truth arises in all cases
where one party reposes, and the other accepts, confidence.23 Duty to speak arises when
one of the parties is utterly without any means of discovering the truth and has to depend
on the good sense of the other party. As insurance company, for example, knows nothing
about the life or circumstances of the assured.
A contract of insurance is called a contract of absolute good faith, uberrima fides. 4 Where
false answers to the state of health were given in a proposal for life insurance, the policy
was held to be voidable and it was not material that the medical officer of the corporation
had certified the life assured as good.

2
Nursery Spg & Wvg Co Ltd (1880) 5 Bom 92Sri
3
Alam v Newaires,(1994) 1 Current LJ32
4
See Reuben Hasson, The Special Nature of the Insurance Contract: A comparison of the American and English
Law of Insurance, (1984) 47 Mod LR 523.
13

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

In absence of any such relationship there is no duty to speak and mere silence even if it
amounts to misrepresentation, will be no fraud. For example in Haji Ahmad Yarkhan v
Abdul Gani Khan.5
The plaintiff spent a sum of money to mark the engagement of his son. He then
discovered that the girl suffered from epileptic fits and so broke off the engagement. He
sued the other party to recover from them compensation for the loss which he had
suffered on account of their deliberative suppression of a vital fact which amounted to
fraud.
The Court relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Nocton v Lord Ashburton6,
where it was pointed out that there is mere passive non-disclosure of the truth, however
deceptive in fact, does not amount to fraud, unless there is a duty to speak. Reffering to
the facts the Court said that the law imposes no general duty on anyone to broadcast the
blemishes of his female relations; not even to those who are contemplating matrimony
with them.
It is further submitted that in the case before the Court, the respondent had no obligation
under law to point out the defects of his machines. Therefore, the respondent had no duty
to speak and thus, was not in breach of law.

B. IN ORDER FOR FRAUD TO BE PROVEN, ONE OF THE ESSENTIALS IS THE

INTENTION TO DECIEVE, WHICH WAS NOT PRESENT FROM THE SIDE OF
THE RESPONDENT.

That, it is most humbly submitted that in order for fraud to be proven, an essential for
fraud is the intention to deceive someone.
In Derry v. Preek7, the hon’ble Court established a three-part test for fraud, and
fraudulent misrepresentation. It was held that one of the three parts in order to test for
fraud is the intention to deceive.
In this particular case, the respondent had no intention to deceive the petitioner. The
petitioner approached the respondent after being impressed by the capabilities of the LPT

5
(1937)AIR Nag 270.
6
(1914) AC 932
7
(1889) UKHL 1
14

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

machines. The respondent discharged his duties to his full extent as required by the contract
dated the 14th of August, 2017. Therefore, there was no intention to deceive the petitioner and
thus, the respondent will not be guilty of fraud under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872.

[ISSUE- 2] WHETHER THE CONTRACT DATED 14th AUGUST 2018 WAS VOIDABLE
AT THE OPTION OF MR. TONY SNARK?

That it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that the contract
dated 14th of August 2017 was voidable at the option of Tony Snark. When the delay in the
delivery caused the stipulated time to run out, Mr. Tony Snark had an option to void the contract,
but he chose not to. [A] Further, the argument of the petitioner that the presence of patent defects
was in non-compliance with the contract. [B] Therefore, the contract dated the 14th of August
2017 was voidable at the option of Mr. Tony Snark.

A. WHEN THE STIPULATED DELIVERY TIME RAN OUT, MR. TONY

SNARK HAD AN OPTION TO VOID THE CONTRACT.
It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner had an option to void the contract
when the respondent was unable to deliver the machines in the stipulated time
given.
In the contract dated the 14th of August 2017, the respondent informed the
petitioner that the delivery of goods will be completed in five days. When the
delivery of goods occurred after nine days of the acceptance of the contract, the
petitioner showed no apprehension on the delay of the goods. Therefore, the
petitioner had an option to void the particular contract but did not do so.

15

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

B. THE PRESENCE OF PATENT DEFECTS WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE

WITH THE CONTRACT.

[ISSUE- 3] WHETHER MR. STEVE ROVEERS IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE AMY

SANTIAGO FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND HER CONSEQUENT LOSS
OF LIVELIHOOD?

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that Mr. Steve Rovers
will not be liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her husband and her subsequent
loss of livelihood. Since in causation, the legal maxim causa proxima et non remota spectatur
says the near cause is looked into in law, not the remote one. Considering that the circumstances
under which the death of Mr. Pablo Escocar happened were remote to the cause of action carried
out by Mr. Steve Rovers, therefore Mr. Rovers will not be liable to compensate Ms. Amy
Santiago for the death of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood. [A] Further, the law
of Privity of Contract states that only the parties who are a part of the contract will benefit from
the consideration bestowed upon by the particular contract. [B]

A. THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DEATH OF MR. PABLO

ESCOCAR HAPPENED WERE REMOTE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF MR.
STEVE ROVERS, THEREFORE THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO
COMPENSATE MS. AMY SANTIAGO FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND
THE SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD.
It is most humbly submitted that the death of Mr. Pablo Escocar happened due to remote
and unforeseeable reasons which had no proximity to the cause of action of the
respondent.

16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co8, the plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was waiting at
a Long Island Rail Road station in August 1924 while taking her daughters to the beach.
Two men attempted to board the train before hers; one (aided by railroad employees)
dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale on the platform to
hit her. After the incident, she began to stammer, and subsequently sued the railroad,
arguing that its employees had been negligent while assisting the man, and that she had
been harmed by the neglect. In May 1927 she obtained a jury verdict of $6,000, which
the railroad appealed. Palsgraf gained a 3–2 decision in the Appellate Division, and the
railroad appealed again. Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling
that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not
have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a
man with a package.

In Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company9, the case concerned a flu remedy called the
"carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not
work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company
was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed as
an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract. The
Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer
and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
From the above given example, it is clear that the moment Mr. Pablo Escocar accepted
the offer on the banner for Lobanza Capsule, he entered into a contract with HPC Ltd.
and not Mr. Steve Rovers. Therefore, the respondent will not be liable to pay Ms. Amy
Santiago for the death of her husband.

In the current case, there was reasonable care taken by the respondent to provide the
machines after careful assembly and repair of the machines. The death of Mr. Pablo
Escocar was a result of Mr. Tony Snark using the LPT machines for manufacturing
medicines that had a different medical composition then that of the Lobanza capsule, and

8
9

17

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

in the process damaging the machines to an extent that the machines started
manufacturing defective Lobanza capsules, due to the consumption of which Mr. Pablo
Escocar died. There was no causa proxima case to the cause of action of the respondent,
and at the same time, there was remoteness to the cause of action. Therefore, the
respondent will not be liable to compensate Ms. Amy Santiago for the death of her
husband and the subsequent loss of livelihood.

B. THE LAW OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT STATES THAT ONLY THE PARTIES

WHO ARE A PART OF THE CONTRACT WILL BENEFIT FROM THE
CONSIDERATION BESTOWED UPON BY THE PARTICULAR CONTRACT.
It is most humbly submitted that in Tweddle v. Atkinson10, the primary issue for the court
was whether or not the son could, as a third party to the agreement, enforce the contract
between the fathers, which was ultimately for the benefit of him and his wife. It was
argued that the intention of the agreement between the fathers was for the couple to
derive a benefit from the payment of the money. Moreover, it was argued that preventing
the son from being able to enforce the contract would effectively ignore the intention of
the fathers.
The groom’s claim was rejected by the court. It was held that the groom was not a part of
the agreement between the fathers and he did not provide any consideration for the
promise made by the father of the bride. Also, as a stranger to the contract, the son could
not enforce it.
In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Selfridge & Co. 11, the plaintiff sold tyres to the
defendant stating that they shall not sell the product to anyone below the list prices.
However, the defendant company sold the tires below the list prices and the plaintiff
brought action against them. The Doctrine of Privity was applied in this case and it was
held that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and therefore the

10
(1861) EWHC, 1 B&S 393
11
(1915) UKHL 1
18

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

plaintiff cannot sue the defendants for the breach of contract as there was no contract
between them.
Therefore, a contract provides Privity for the parties who are a part of the contract, and
that no third party alien to the contract would be a part of the consideration under the
contract. This was further upheld in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd.12
In the current case, Ms. Amy Santiago is a third party to the contract dated the 14 th of
August 2017, of which the respondent and the petitioner, Mr. Tony Snark, are the only
parties involved. Therefore, due to the Privity of Contract, Ms. Amy Santiago will not be
entitled to receive compensation from Mr. Steve Rovers.

[ISSUE- 4] Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service provider
of LPT Machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of
contract?

Mr. Steve Rovers is not liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract. When the
petitioner had shown a delay in the delivery of goods, Mr. Tony Snark had an option to void the
contract, but he chose not to. The respondent provided the chance for the petitioner to check the
machines at every step of the process, which was waived off by the petitioner. The petitioner also
used the machines to make medicines that had a different chemical composition than the capsule
it was meant to be manufactured for. Therefore, due to the abnormal use of product, Mr. Steve
Rovers is not liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract. [B]

12
(1961) UKHL 4
19

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

PRAYER

In Light Of The Issues Raised, Arguments Advanced And Authorities Cited, The Counsel For
The Petitioner Humbly Prays That This Hon’ble Court And Declare:

1. That, fraud was not committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

2. That, the contract dated 14th of August 2017 was voidable at the option of Mr. Tony
Snark.

3. That, Mr. Steve Rovers is not liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her
husband and her subsequent loss of livelihood.

4. That, Mr. Steve Rovers is not liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract

AND

Pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice, and
good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Counsels for the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

S/d__________________

Counsels for the Respondent

20

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52

3RD FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of Sind (13th Ed. 2001)

 M.P. Jain, Sind Constitutional Law (7th Ed.2014)
 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India
 Garner, Bryan A and Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary(8th Ed. 2004)
 Pandey J.N., Constitutional Law of India (Ed.54th 2017).
 R.K.Bangia, Law of Contract – I (Ed.6th 2009)
 Avatar Singh, Law of Contract & Specific Relief (Ed.12th 2017)
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Law Of Torts (Vol. Ii 27th Edition)

WEBSITE REFERENCES

 www.scconline.com
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.manupatrafast.com
 www.merriam-webster.com

21

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TC-52