Before The Hon'Be Supreme Court of Asnard: HPC LTD., & Amy Santiago ..Appellant

3RD FACULTY OF LAW(INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19 TC-32

1
BEFORE THE HON’BE SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

HPC Ltd., & Amy
Santiago………………………………..Appellant.
V.
Steve Rovers………………………………………………Respondent.
Civil case under Sections 17 of Asnard Contract Act and Section 21 of

Constitution of Asnard.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
Most Respectfully Submitted To the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Asnard.

Team code- 32.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................3.
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................4-6.
1|Page
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................7.
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................8.
5. ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………….9.
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................10-11.
7. PLEADINGS.........................................................................................................................12-30
I. Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872?..............................................................................................................................12-16.
II. Whether the contract dated 14th august 2017 voidable at the option of Mr. Tony
Snark?...........................................................................................................................16-21.
III. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her
husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?.................................................21-25.
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?...........................26-30.
8. PRAYER........................................................................................................................31.
2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
§ - Section
¶ - Paragraph
& - And
Addl. - Additional
AIR - All India Reporter
All - Allahabad High Court
Alias - Also Known as
Anr - Another
Art. - Article
CBI - Crime Bureau of Investigation
Co. - Company
Del - Delhi High Court
ed. - Edition
Govt. - Government
HC - High Court
Hon’ble - Honorable
Ld. - Learned
Ors - Others
PC - Privy Council
PM - Prime Minister
RI - Rigorous Imprisonment
SC - Supreme Court
SCC - Supreme Court Cases
SI - Simple Imprisonment
u/s - Under Section
v. - Versus
3|Page
INDEXOF AUTHORITIES
I. TABLE OF CASES
S.NO. CASE TITLE CITATION CITED ON

PAGE NO.
1. JK Industries Ltd. V. Texmaco Ltd. 9TH APRIL,2009
2. Muralidhar Chatterjee v.International film 15th December 1942
company
3. Defence , government of india v. cenrex sp.
Z.o.o. and others
4. Planche v. colbut (1831) 8 bing ,14
5. De bernardv v. harding (1853)
6. Snepp v. united states (444 u.s. 507 (1980)
7. Bhagwan das metals ltd. V. M/S Raghavendra

agencies
8. M/S Mascon multisrvices and consultants pvt. Maharashtra high court
Ltd. V. Bharat oman Re
9. Steven v. Bromby & son 1919
10. Craven ellis v. canons ltd. 1936
11. Planche v. colbut 1831
12. Sumpter v. hedges 1898
13. Hoemig v. Isaacs 1950
14. Benaras v. kanakiya of saraf 1959
15. M.Gopalan v. state of Kerala 10th April 2002
16. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
17. Francis Coralie v. Union territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746
18. Bandhua mukti morcha v. union of India 1984 AIR 802
19. Kharak singh v. State of U.P. AIR (1963) SC 129
20. Sunil Batra v. Delhi administration AIR (1978) 1675,1980 SCR (2)557
4|Page
21. Olgatellis v. Bombay Municipal corp. AIR (1986) 1980,1985 SCR Supl.
(2)51
22. Shantistar Building v. Narayan Khimalal (1990) 1 SCC 520
Totame
23. Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 UKHL 100
24. Haley v. London Electricity Board 1965 AC 77
25. Watson v. British boxing board of control 2001 QB 1134
26. Anns v. London electricity board 1965 AC 77
27. Caparo v. Dickman 1990 UKHL 2
28. Dminion natural gas v. Collins and Perkins 1909 AC 640
29. Hadley v. Baxendal 1854 EWHC J70
30. Malik v. Bank of credit & commerce 1998
International S.A.
31. Addis v. Gramophone co. ltd. 1909
32. Johnson v. Unisys ltd. (2001) WLR 1076
II. BOOKS REFERRED
• BASU DAS DURGA:INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Lexis
Nexis India.
• J.N. PANDEY , CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.
• M.P. SINGH, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
• M.P. JAIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed., 2010), Lexis NexisButterworths
 ANSON'S LAW OF CONTRACT, Oxford university press.
 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, R.K. Bangia
III.LEGAL DICTIONARIES REFERRED
5|Page
1. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 2002) US: West Group

2. P. RamanathaAiyar’s Concise Law Dictionary (4th ed. 2012) New Delhi: Lexis Nexis
ButterworthsWadhwa
3. Wharton’s Law Lexicon (15th ed. 2011) New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd.
IV. STATUTES REFERRED
1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
V. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.the-laws.com
3. www.jstor.com
4. www.scconline.com
5. www.jcconline.com
6|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. In addition, Article 32 of
the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been conferred with power to direct
transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to another State High Court
or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court. The Supreme Court, if satisfied that
cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before it and
one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and that such questions are
substantial questions of general importance, may withdraw a case or cases pending before the
High Court or High Courts and dispose of all such cases itself. Under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, International Commercial Arbitration can also be initiated in the
Supreme Court.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the
High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) of the Constitution in respect of any
judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving
substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the
Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case
involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of
the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals
in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution 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 India.
Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its judgment or
order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the
grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal
proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
7|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
HPC Ltd. (2012),a leading company owned by Mr.Tonysnark enjoys absolute monopoly
W.R.T. ‘Lobanza’ capsule in DSA (Asnard)and this capsule is prescribed by doctors for
reducing addiction for narcotic substances. Tony Snark and Steve Rovers were childhood
friend (resident of Dorne). Steve designed his own machine named LPT (labzo pharma
tech),it increases production of medicines (also lobanza) by 5 times and at a cheaper rate and
its market value is $10M.HPC Ltd. Purchased LPT on 4 thjune 2017 and LPT proved to be
boon for HPC,it increases production at higher rate than they thought and due to this HPC
Ltd. On 14th Aug 2017 enters into agreement for 3 more LPTs and steve agreed for delivery
in 5 days, once the machines assembled and repaired but LPTs deliverd in 9 days and HPC
used 1 lpt for manufacturing other medicines.Mr.PabloEscocar , was janitor in govt. school in
state of Riverrum prone to drugs and smoking saw advertisement of a medicos about lobanza
capsule and because his wife Mrs.Amy Santiago constantly pushing him to quit all that , he
bought Lobanza but he didn’t refrain from smoking.A week prior to sale of 3 LPTs on
14thaug 2017, Mr.Steve received a report from auditor about certain patent defects but he
failed to disclose to HPC Ltd. And consequently HPC Ltd. Encountered frequent problem
with few LPTs on 22nd oct. 2017 , all machine malfunctioned and Mr. Tony appoints Mr.
Steve and his tech team for repair due to this few instances of illness were reported but no
serious medical catastrophe had occurred.After 8 days of consumption , Mr. Pablo died and
his wife went into mental trauma because he was sole bread owner , no one helps her and due
to lack of awareness she wasn’t aware of cause of her husband’s death.Mr. tony ,aggrieved by
huge loss found about Mr. Pablo’s death and requested his wife for joining the suit against
Mr. Steve which he initiated for fraud and breach of contract before dorne district court for
compensation of $100M and she agreed to join, claiming a part for her livelihood. Case was
transferred from district court to HC due to lackof pecuniary jurisdiction and HC dismissed
the suit on the ground of sufficient merit after that HPC Ltd. Appealed before SC of Asnard.
ISSUES RAISED
8|Page
I. Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872?
II. Whether the contract dated 14th august 2017 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?
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?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
9|Page
I.
Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that accused is guilty of the offence of fraud under
section 17 of Indian contract act,1872. In the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. V. Texmaco
Limited2 on 9th April, 2009. The basic grounds of fraud in the present matter are as follows;
 delay in the delivery of machine from 5 to 9 days.
 prior notification about the patent defect in the machine and failure in disclosing the
information to HPC Ltd.
 HPC Ltd. Encountered frequent problem with few LPT Machine & unfortunately on
22nd oct, 2017 all machines malfunctioned.
 Mr. Snark suffered a huge loss due to the malfunctioning of the machine. Thus Mr.
Snark accused Mr. Steve of fraud u/s 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
II.
Whether the contract dated 14th august 2017 voidable at the option of Mr. Tony Snark?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the contract dated on 14 th august 2017 was
voidable3 at the option of Mr. Tony Snark. A contract that is valid but that can be declared
invalid at the request of one of the parties because of a defect or illegality in making it. For
example, if one party made a fraudulent misrepresentation on which the other party relied in
2 th
9 April,2009.
3
Muralidhar chatterjee v. international film company, 15 th December, 1942.
10 | P a g e
making the contract, the contract will be enforced against the misrepresenting party but the
other party may seek relief by electing to void the contract.
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 humbly submitted that the accused Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate for the
death of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood as In the case of M. Gopalan vs
State Of Kerala4 it was held that "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law."
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 also recognizes the rights of a
human being. Article 6(1) reads as follows:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected .
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?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate
Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract. When a party performing a contract does not do so to
the standard required by the contract 5 or within the timeframe set, the party will breach the
contract and in reference to section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which
explains breach of contract and its compensation to a larger extent very well highlights the
liability of Mr. Steve Rovers to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for the same.
4
10th april 2002
5
The standard may be strict or may require only the exercise of reasonable care.
11 | P a g e
PLEADINGS
I.
Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that accused is guilty of the offence of fraud under
section 17 of Indian contract act, 1872. In the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. V. Texmaco
Limited6. The basic grounds of fraud in the present matter are as follows;
 delay in the delivery of machine from 5 to 9 days.

 prior notification about the patent defect in the machine and failure in disclosing the
information to HPC Ltd.
 HPC Ltd. Encountered frequent problem with few LPT Machine & unfortunately on
22nd oct, 2017 all machines malfunctioned.
 Mr. Snark suffered a huge loss due to the malfunctioning of the machine.
1.1. Essentials of the offence of fraud:Fraud defined —‘Fraud’ means and
includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance, or by his agent1, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his
agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— —‘Fraud’ means and
includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance, or by his agent1, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his
agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract.
 the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to
be true,
 the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
 a promise made without any intention of performing it;
 any other act fitted to deceive;
 any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. Explanation.
—Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a
contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being
6 th
9 April,2009.
11 | P a g e
had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence,
is, in itself, equivalent to speech. Illustrations
 A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B
about the horse’s unsoundness. This is not fraud in A. (a) A sells, by auction, to B, a
horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse’s
unsoundness. This is not fraud in A."
 B is A’s daughter and has just come of age. Here the relation between the parties
would make it A’s duty to tell B if the horse is unsound. (b) B is A’s daughter and has
just come of age. Here the relation between the parties would make it A’s duty to tell
B if the horse is unsound."
 B says to A—‘‘If you do not deny it, I shall assume that the horse is sound”. A says
nothing. Here, A’s silence is equivalent to speech. (c) B says to A—‘‘If you do not
deny it, I shall assume that the horse is sound”. A says nothing. Here, A’s silence is
equivalent to speech."
 A and B, being traders, enter upon a contract. A has private information of a change
in prices which would affect B’s willingness to proceed with the contract. A is not
bound to inform B. (d) A and B, being traders, enter upon a contract. A has private
information of a change in prices which would affect B’s willingness to proceed with
the contract. A is not bound to inform B."
As in our case it was the duty of Mr. Steve Rover to speak about the patent defect in
the LPTs machine when he has already received a detailed report from the auditor
categorically highlighting certain patent defects in those machines.
1.2. Cases relating to the delay and malfunctioning of the machine:
In the case of Ministry of Defence, Government of India Vs. Cenrex Sp. Z.O.O and
Othe ...7 It was held by the Delhi high court that.... a period of three weeks plus 30 days to
open the l.c.s. 7. it is also, at this stage, necessary to refer to and reproduce sections 51, 52
and 54 of the indian contract act, 1872 inasmuch as these provisions will be relevant to
determine the issue as to whether or not it was the petitioner or the respondent no.1 who
was ..... between them with the petitioner as a buyer and the respondent no.1 as a seller under
the contract dated 25.2.2002 whereby the respondent no.1 was to supply to the petitioner
7 th
8 December 2015
12 | P a g e
three consignments of parachutes and related equipments. petitioner on account of delays in

the deliveries enforced the performance bond given by the respondent no.1 in view of articles
..... as relied upon by the counsel for the respondent no.1 can have the effect for not applying
the law under section 6 of the general clauses act when section 12 has no co-relation to
section 34 of the act. 25. in view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed and the
impugned award dated 23.4.2007 as modified by the order dated ..... -supply of goods by the
respondent no. 1 and the relevant language of the articles which are relied do not pertain to
the issue of delayed deliveries. in other words, the language of article 17 of the contract for
entitlement of the petitioner to procure stores from another supplier is with respect to non-
supply of the goods by the respondent no.1 .....As in our case there is a delay and a non
performance of contact on the part of Defendant.
Restitutionary claim by the innocent party: where the claim is restitution, the obligation is
imposed on the parties by the law without references to any promise or agreement where a
contract is broken in such a way as to entitle the innocent party to be treated as discharged,
and it has elected to be so treated, it may sue on a quantum meruit for the value of work done,
under the contract, as an alternative to bringing an action on the contract for damages.
Planche v Colburn (1831)
In the case of Planche v Colburn ,8 it was held that Planche had agreed to write a book on
Costume and Ancient Armour for a series published by the Colburn called “The Juvenile
Library”. Planche was to receive £100 on completion of the book, to which end he collected
materials and wrote part of the book. Colburn then abandoned the series. Planche was HELD
to be entitled to recover 50 guineas on a quantum meruit basis. The plaintiff out not to lose
the fruit of his labour.
It was held in De Bernardy V. Harding9 be Alderson B. that the plaintiff could could one in
quantum meruit for the work already done.
Alderson B. said “Where one party has absolutely refused to perform or has rendered himself
incapable of performing, his part of the contract, he puts it in the power of the other party
either to sue for a breach of it or to rescind the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the
work actually done.”
8
(1831)8 Bing . 14
9
(1853)
13 | P a g e
The objective of Quantum meruit is differ it from that of awarding damages. Damages are
awarded to put the party in the same position as if the contract as if the contract was
performed by the other side and to compensate the injured party for the injury suffered by the
breach. On the other hand, remedy under quantum meruit is to compensate a party for the
work he had done and to place him in the same positioin as if there was no contract between
the parties.
The right of claiming Quantum Meruit, like damaged does not arise out of contract. It is a
right conferred by law. It is a Quasi-Contractual right and not a contractual right. As in our
case the applicant fulfil all the necessary situations and further relied on the fiduciary
relationship between the two friends.
Fiduciary relationship: In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all

times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts. A fiduciary is someone who has
undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which
give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.
The classic example may be Snepp v. United States10. Frank W. SneppIII was bound by a
contractual duty not to publish a book about his activities with the Central Intelligence
Agency without submitting it to the agency for prepublication review. Although no
confidential information was, in fact, revealed, the courts required Snepp to pay a
restitutionary rather than a compensatory remedy. The fiduciary relationship between Snepp
and the government triggered super compensatory remediation even though breach of a
contractual term usually results only in expectancy damages, not a profits-based recovery.
Like disgorgement, restitution generally "is measured by the amount of the fiduciary's gain
rather than by the amount of the beneficiary's lOSS.,,Still, courts' use of restitution to achieve
equity and to reverse the effects of "unjust enrichment" need not be pursued only through a
profits-based remedy. Rather, through restitution, courts may require fiduciariesto pay a fair
price in an unfair transaction instead of disgorging their profits. Restitutionary remedies can
also be contribution-based: abeneficiary can be compensated in accordance with his
contribution to anenterprise. Contribution-based restitutionary remedies undo the effects of
unjust enrichment in a retrospective way without focusing on profits or prospective recovery
per se. Although restitution-like disgorgement andconstructive trusts-is a remedy available to
non-fiduciaries as well fromtime to time, it is routinely linked to the fiduciary context.Finally,
10
444 U.S. 507 (1980).
14 | P a g e
punitive damages may be available in a suit for breach offiduciary duties even though they
are not routinely available for breachesof contract. Thus, above and beyond disgorgement and
other forms ofrestitution, punitive damages may be assessed as well when a breach isextreme
or a product of malice or fraud.
As in our case the Application relied on the friendship and trust they both posses and made
full payment even after the delay and further trusted his friend when he (application 1) was
requested to conduct a routine check on the machine in coming few days by one of
hiscolleagues. He was evidently amused by the preposterous idea of doubting his friend.
II.
Whether the contract dated 14th august 2017 voidable at the option of Mr. Tony Snark?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the contract dated on 14 th august 2017 was
voidable at the option of Mr. Tony Snark. A contract that is valid but that can be declared
invalid at the request of one of the parties because of a defect or illegality in making it. For
example, if one party made a fraudulent misrepresentation on which the other party relied in
making the contract, the contract will be enforced against the misrepresenting party but the
other party may seek relief by electing to void the contract.
A voidable contract11 is an agreement between two people deemed unenforceable for one or
more legal reasons. Just because a contract exists doesn't mean it's always enforceable. A
voidable contract appears to be a legal contract when it's made; however, it can be annulled
or rescinded in court.
Reasons a Contract Might Be Voidable
There are a variety of reasons the court might deem a contract unenforceable, including:
 Misrepresentation or fraud.
 Duress of undue influence.
 Legal incapacity to enter into contract.
 Breach of contract.
11
15 | P a g e
 Unconscionable terms.
 Failure to disclose a material fact.
A contract can be canceled due to a mutual factual mistake. However, failure to read a
contract does not make it voidable. Lack of capacity might include intoxication at the time
the contract was signed or mental impairment that keeps someone from understanding the
contract terms. Minors lack legal capacity to enter into a contract, as well. If a minor did not
get a parent or guardian's consent, the contract can be voided. However, if the minor reaches
the age of consent, which is 18 in most states, and doesn't request to cancel the contract
within a reasonable amount of time, a judge might determine the contract to be binding.
Contracts can be deemed voidable due to coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, and undue
influence. Victims of coercion12 and these other scenarios have the right to ask for the
contract to be voided.
Essentially, a voidable contract was at one time legal and enforceable. If one party discovers
the contract has one or more defects, they can request it be deemed a voidable contract. The
contract will remain enforceable and valid if the party with the power to have it declared
voidable chooses not to reject it despite the defect. Unfortunately, the person who could have
the contract deemed voidable is often unaware of the fraud or misrepresentation. We can save
a contract if only one or two parts are voidable. This is called severance.
In the case of Bhagwandas Metals Ltd vs M/S.Raghavendra Agencies13, it is stated that Due
to undue delay caused by the defendants in delivering the BOCB there was in turn delay in
commissioning the new expansion programme, which included the setting up of a mini steel
plant and thus the entire expansion programme suffered a serious set back, not only in terms
of delay in commissioning the new project, but it had also seriously affected the projected
profitability figures and resulted not only in monitory loss to it, but also resulted in loss of
reputation of the plaintiff in the market.
In the case of M/s. Mascon Multiservices and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Oman Re …14
it was held that ..... the activity without raising the claim under clause 47 and was, therefore,
barred from making such a claim. mr. andhyarujina would argue that clause 47 is void under
section 28(b) of the Indian contractact, 1872. section 28 of the ica runs thus: 28. agreements
12
Section 15 0f Indian Contract Act, 1872.
13
14th june 2011.
14
Maharashtrahigh Court
16 | P a g e
in restraint of legal proceedings, void. ?? every agreement, ?? (a) by which any party thereto
is restricted absolutely from enforcing his ..... are void contracts and to claim that the contract
between he parties herein is would be void at least so far as clause ..... india, 2010
lawsuit(del) 4632, in which the contract was held to be void under section 23 of the ica as
being against public policy of india. the case referred to the entitlement to claim damages
under section17 read with section 55 of the ica in view of it being void under section 23 of
the contractact. the reliance upon that judgment is to show which ..... the payment for
creeks/nallas/village roads could be made only after physical verification of those crossings at
the site. this was set out in the respondent's letter dated 17.08.1998 in which the respondent
called upon the petitioner to finalize the programme for physical verification of
creeks/nallas/village roads in consultation with the deputy manager. by the ..... It is a phrase
which means, “payment in proportion to the amount of work done”. Quantum meruit literally
means, “as much as earned” or as much as merited. “Under English Law a party who for
some reason can not claim under the contract, may under certain circumstances claim way of
Quantum merit i.e., reasonable remuneration for work done. Thus Quantum is a remedy and
not any alternate to the form of damages. When the party injured by the breach, has at the
time of breach done part, but not all of that which he is bound to do under a contract, and is
seeking to be compensated for the value of the work done, he can get a remedy under this
concept, for example when the contract provides that payment is to be made on completion of
the work, the party can not demand any remuneration under the contract as the work has not
been completed. But he can claim on the basis of quantum meruit for the work done by him.
Lord Atkin has explained this concept in very simple words with the help of an example in
the case of Steven V. Bromby & Son 15. To quote him, “If I order from a wine merchant 12
bottles of whisky at so much a bottle, and he sends me ten bottles of whisky and two of
brandy, and I accept them, I must pay a reasonable price for the brandy”.
The defendant proposed to erect and let seats to view the funeral of the Duke of Wellington.
It agreed that the plaintiff should advertise the seats outside England and sell tickets, and that
he should receive a commission on all the tickets thus sold. The plaintiff prepared
advertisements and paid printers, but, before he had sold any tickets, the defendant
wrongfully revoked his authority.
Claim on Quantum Meruit arises under the following cases:
15
(1919)
17 | P a g e
(1) Work done under void contracts (Sec. 65): Where a person renders services under an
agreement which later on is being discovered as void or has rendered services on pursuance
of a transaction, supposed by him to be a contract, but the contract in truth, is without legal
validity, he gets a right to be compensated for the advantage received by the other party from
him.
Craven Ellis V. Canons Ltd.16 serves a good example for elucidating this point.
The plaintiff was appointed managing director of a company by an agreement under the
company’s seal which provided for his remuneration, By the articles of association each
director was required to obtain certain qualification shares within two months of his
appointment. Neither the plaintiff nor the other directors ever obtained these shares. The
plaintiff nevertheless, purporting to act under the agreement rendered services for the
company and sued for the sums specified in the agreement, or, alternatively, for a reasonable
remuneration on a quantum meruit.
(2) Work done with on non-gratutious basis (Sec. 70) : When a person does some work or
renders some serivce, with an intention not to do so gratutiously and the other person takes
the benefit of such work or service, the person rendering such service or doing such work can
claim compensation from the person enjoying such benefits, or get the goods so delivered
back from him.
Example
A, a trader, leaves some goods at B’s house by mistake. B. Treating the goods as his own
uses them. He is bound to pay A for them.
(3) Abandonment or refusal of performance of a contract: When one of the parties

abandons the work or refuses to perform the contract, the other party can get compensation
for the work done by him. Decision given by C.J. Tindal in the case of Planche V. Colbut17 is
a good example to illustrate this point. The facts of the case are:-
The plaintiff had agreed to writer for “The Juvenile Library”, a series published by the
defendants, a book on Costume and Ancient Armour. He was to receive £100 on the
completion of the book. He collected material and wrote part of the book, and then the
defendants abandoned the series. There were negotiations for the publication of the books as
a separate work, but these fell through, apparently as the plaintiffed that he had written
16
(1936)
17
(1831)
18 | P a g e
especially for children and that to publish his work as a magnum opus would injure his
reputation. He claimed alternatively on the original contract and on a quantum meruit.
(4) Divisible Contract: Where a contract is divisible and the party not in default has
recieved the advantage out of it, the defaulting party can get compensation under quantum
Meruit. But remember, the party in default can not get this right in case of indivisible contract
on the basis of this principle.
The case of Sumpter V. Hedges 18 provides a good example on this point.
S undertook to build a house for H for Rs. 50,000. After completing half of the work, S
abandoned the construction work. He afterwards got the house constructed by some one else.
It was decided, S could not recover the remuneration for the construction work done by him
since the payment was to be made only after the completion of the building.
(5) Badly performed indivisible contracts: Where an indivisible contract has been

performed the work is badly done, the performance can get the remuneration, but the other
party also gets a right to make deduction for the bad work.
The case of Hoemig V. Isaacs 19 serves a good examples to illustrate the point.
A, a decorator undertook to decorate B’s flat for a lumpsum of Rs. 10,000. B. laid down
certain requirements. A completed the work but B pointed out certain defects in the work
done A. B got those defects removed from C at a cost of Rs. 500/- Held A could recover
(10,000-500=)9,500/- from B.
5. Liability of person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered, by mistake
or under correction (Secton 72) : A person to whom money has been paid, or anything
delivered by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it.
Illustrations.
(a) A and B jointly owe to 100 Rs. to C. A alone pays the amount to C, and B not knowing
this fact, pays 100 Rs. over again to C.C is bound to repay the amount to B.
(b) A railway refused to deliver certain goods to the consignee, except upon the payment of
illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to obtain the goods.
He is entitled to recover so much of the charges as was illegally excessive.
18
(1898)
19
(1950)
19 | P a g e
(c) K paid sales tax on his forward transactions of bullion. Subsequently this tax was
declared ultra vires. Held K. could recover the amount of Sales Tax and that Section 72 is
wide enough to cover not only a mistake of fact but also a mistake of law. (Sales Tax Officer,
Benaras V. Kanakiya of Saraf20).
The above examples clearly state the scope of Section 72. The principle involved in this
Section is applicable regardless of the fact whether a privity of contract does or does not exist
between the parties. The principles is based on equity.
The person enjoying the benefit is made liable to compensate the aggrieved party, not on the
basis of any contract between the concerned parties but on the basis of advantage taken by
him due to mistake of or coercion on another. The mistake may relate to facts or even of law
(See Example ‘c’ above).
The liability to repay money under this Section can be enforced either by the person who has
paid the money or by the person who becomes aggrieved due to non-discharge of such
liability. Many cases have been decided over these issues by the various High Courts of
India.
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 humbly submitted that the accused Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate for the
death of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood as In the case of M. Gopalan vs
State Of Kerala21 it was held that "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law."
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 also recognizes the rights of a
human being. Article 6(1) reads as follows:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected .
3.1 APPELLANT’S LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD
20
1959.
21
10th april 2002
20 | P a g e
“Life” as mentioned in Article 21 of the constitution of Democratic State of ‘Asnard’ (DSA),

is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence of
continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to live
with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, etc. It also includes those aspects of
life which would make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The bare
necessities, minimum and basic requirement that is essential and unavoidable for a person is
the core of the concept of right to life.22
According to Bhagwati J., Art 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in

a democratic society.” The right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most
organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation in our laws.23
Article 21 of the constitution of Democratic State of ‘Asnard’ (DSA), provides that, “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”
In case of Kharak Singh vs. State of UP24, the Supreme Court quoted and held that “by the
term ‘life’ as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence, the inhibition
against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.
In Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration25, the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval of
the above observation and held that the “Right to Life includes the right to lead a healthy life
so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in prime condition. Which would even include
the right to protection of a person, tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a
man’s life. It includes the Right to Live in peace, to sleep in peace, the right to repose and
health and right to live with human dignity.26
22
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India 1978 AIR 597 ; Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR
746.
23
BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. Union of India 1984 AIR 802.
24
AIR (1963) SC 129.
25
AIR (1978) 1675,1980 SCR (2) 557.
26
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597.
21 | P a g e
Elaborating the same view, the court in Francis Coralie vs. Union territory of Delhi27
observed that “the Right to Live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that
goes along with it, viz. The bare necessities of if such as adequate nutrition, clothing and
shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse
form, freely moving about, mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include
the right to basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on function and activities as
constitutes the bare minimum expression of human self.”
The Supreme Court in Olgatellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp.28, popularly known as the
“pavement dwellers case”, a five judge bench of the court now implied that “ Right to
Livelihood” is borne out of the “ Right to Life”, as no person can live without the means of
living, i.e. the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel
of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life
would be to deprive him by the means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
In Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan KhimalalTotame29, the court held that “the right to life
would take within its sweep the right to food, right to clothing, the right to decent
environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of
an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is bare
protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would
allow him to grow in every aspect- physical, mental and intellectual. The constitution aims at
ensuring fuller development of every child that would be possible only if the child lives in a
proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built
comfortable house but a reasonable home for people can be a reasonable accommodation.
The two aspects of right to life are (a) Deprivation of life of a person (b) Deprivation
of quality of life. The contention of appellant’s counsel is that Mr. Pablo Escocar is deprived
of his right to life and Ms. Amy is deprived of his quality of life.
Before depriving a person of his right to life the following conditions are requires to be
fulfilled;
27
AIR (1981)746,1981 SCR (2) 516
28
AIR (1986)1980,1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
29
(1990) 1 SCC 520.
22 | P a g e
(a) There must be a valid law
(b) Law must provide procedure
(c) Procedure must be just fair and reasonable
(d) Law must satisfy requirements of article 14 i.e., must be reasonable.
Mr. Pablo Escocar, a janitor in a Government school, was unfortunately prone to drugs and
smoking. Mr. Escocar saw the advertisement of Lobanza capsule on a banner across both
sides of the road.
Mrs. Amy Santiago, wife of Mr. Pablo Escocar, had been constantly pushing him to get rid of
his drug addiction and smoking habit as soon as possible. It is due to strained family relations
with parents and in-laws that the couple have been living in a separate house, along with their
8-year-old daughter. Mr. Pablo bought and started consuming Lobanza Capsule each day
after subscribing to the advertisement on that hanging banner. However, he couldn’t refrain
from smoking.
Unfortunately, Mr. Pablo’s health started deteriorating rapidly, but he still couldn’t refrain
from smoking. As a consequence, he died after eight days of consumption of the capsule.
His pregnant wife went into mental trauma and found herself completely helpless as he was
the sole bread-earner for their family. Moreover, after her husband’s death, Ms. Amy
requested monetary help from her in-laws, but to no avail. Due to a sheer lack of awareness
in such small districts, Ms. Amy wasn’t aware of the causes that lead to her husband’s
untimely death, and was oblivious to the legal ramifications of what had recently transpired.
Mr. Pablo Escocar was deprived of his life and Mrs. Amy Santiago traumatized by her
husband’s death and the dwindling financial situation of her household, is deprived of his
quality of life and also his means of livelihood, without any law, without any Procedure. That
being itself a clear violation of right to life and personal liberty of the petitioner as mentioned
in the constitution of Democratic State of ‘Asnard’ (DSA).
3.2 NEGLIGENCE CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT
In Donoghue v Stevenson30, The appellant went with a friend into a coffee shop, where the
friend ordered for her a bottle of ginger beer. This was served in an opaque bottle the contents
30
1932 UKHL 100.
23 | P a g e
of which could not be seen from the outside. The shop owner opened the bottle and poured
some of the contents into the appellant’s glass. This she drank and her friend poured in the
rest of the bottle. The appellant alleged that this contained the decomposed remains of a snail
which caused her to suffer shock and then later, a gastric illness. She brought this action for
negligence in the Scottish Court of Session against the manufacturer of the ginger beer. The
Scottish Court held that there was no cause of action; as the bottle was not directly purchased
from the manufacturer. The case came before the House of Lords on the question of law
alone. It was held that the manufacturer of the ginger beer owed a duty of care to the
claimant.
Lord Atkin has made the following general principle governing the duty of care, it is also
called the neighbour principle:
Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or
omissions which are called in question.
In Haley v London Electricity Board31, The Defendant dug a trench in a street. Their
precautions for the protection of passers-by were not sufficient to protect the Claimant,
because he was blind. He was injured as a result, and the Court heldthat the number of blind
people who walked about on their own made it foreseeable that such a person could be
injured, and therefore gave rise to a duty of care to take suitable precautions to prevent such
injury.
This ratio has begun to open a category of people to whom a risk of harm was foreseeable, so
this was not just for one person.
In Watson v British Boxing Board of Control32, A boxer suffered severe brain damage after
being injured in a match, and evidence suggested that his injuries would have been less
severe if immediate medical attention had been available at the ringside. It was held that there
was sufficient proximity between Mr. Watson and the Board to give rise to a duty of care.
The is because the boxer’s licensing system operated by the Board created a relationship of
proximity, and the board had complete control and responsibility to the situation which
resulted in Mr Watson’s injury if the Board did not exercise reasonable care.
31
1965 AC 77.
32
2001 QB 1134.
24 | P a g e
In Anns v London Borough of Merton33, Lord Wilberforce has made the following statement
and is called the two-stage test:
First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has
suffered damage, there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighborhood such that, in
the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on the part of one may be likely to
cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the
first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any
considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or to limit the scope of the duty or the
class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.
The Caparo v Dickman34decisions have taken the law back similar to a pre-Donoghue
position. The latest development in this case requires that there are now three questions to be
asked in deciding whether a duty of care was owed, the Court will ask:
(i) Was the damage to the Claimant reasonably foreseeable?

(ii) Was the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant sufficiently proximate?
(iii) Is it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
In Dominion Natural Gas v Collins and Perkins35, In actions for damages in respect of an
accident against the appellant gas company it appeared that the appellants were not occupiers
of the premises on which the accident had occurred and had no contractual relations with the
plaintiffs, but that they had installed a machine on the said premises, and the jury found that
the accident was caused by an explosion resulting from gas emitted, owing to the appellants'
negligence, through its safety valve direct into the closed premises instead of into the open
air. Held, that the initial negligence having been found against the appellants in respect of an
easy and reasonable precaution which they were bound to have taken, they were liable unless
they could shew that the true cause of the accident was the act of a subsequent conscious
volition, e.g., the tampering with the machine by third parties
33
1978 AC 728.
34
1990 UKHL 2.
35
1909 AC 640.
25 | P a g e
In Hadley v. Baxendal36, The court held that in order for a non-breaching party
to recover damages arising out of any special circumstances, the special circumstances must
be communicated to and known by all parties at the time of formation.
On 14th August 2017, HPC Ltd. entered into an agreement with Mr. Steve, regarding the
purchase of three LPT Machines for Lobanza Capsule’s production. Mr. Steve agreed to the
terms of the agreement and informed Mr. Snark that he would ensure the delivery of the
machines in five days, once the machines are carefully assembled and repaired. However, in
the interest of professional ethics, Mr. Snark was requested by one of the colleagues of Mr.
Steve to conduct a routine check on the machines in the coming few days. Mr. Snark,
evidently amused by the preposterous idea of doubting his friend, nevertheless nodded and
smiled. HPC Ltd. eventually received the delivery of the machines after nine days, assembled
as per the agreed terms, and without showing any apprehensions as to the delay in delivery,
promptly made the complete payment of $30 Million Dollars. Furthermore, HPC Ltd. also
used one of its LPT Machines to manufacture other medicines with different chemical
compositions, apart from Lobanza.
A week prior to the sale of 3 LPTs on 14th August 2017, Mr. Steve received a detailed report
from the auditor categorically highlighting certain patent defects in those machines. Faced
with extreme pressure to meet the rising demand, Mr. Steve ignored the report and failed to
disclose that information to HPC Ltd. Consequently, on certain occasions, HPC Ltd.
encountered frequent problems with few LPT Machines, and unfortunately on 22nd October
2017 all machines malfunctioned. Mr. Tony appointed Mr. Steve and his tech-team for the
repair. Few instances of illness were reported amongst a few people but no serious medical
catastrophe had occurred.
Meanwhile Mr. Snark, aggrieved by such a huge loss to his production, accused Mr. Steve of
fraud, and initiated civil proceedings against him for breach of contract before the Dorne
District Court. HPC Ltd. sought to avail the doctrine of restitution and prayed for a
compensation of $ 100M.
Thus, there was negligence on part of Mr. Steve Rovers as he ignored the detailed report from
the auditor categorically highlighting certain patent defects in those machines and failed to
disclose that information to HPC Ltd and inturn deprived Ms. Amy of means of livelihood.
36
1854 EWHC J70.
26 | P a g e
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?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate
Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract. When a party performing a contract does not do so to
37
the standard required by the contract or within the timeframe set, the party will breach the
contract.
Breach of contract: it is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained for
exchange is not honored by one or more parties to the contract by non-performance or
interference with the other party’s performance.
Section 73 of the Indian contract act,1872 :-
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. —When a contract has
beenbroken, 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 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
37
The standard may be strict or may require only the exercise of reasonable care.
27 | P a g e
default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract."
Explanation.—In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means
which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract
must be taken into account. Illustration (relevant)
 A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed, without delay, to A’s

mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of machine. B unreasonably delays
the delivery of the machine, and A, in consequence, loses a profitable contract with
the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average
amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the
time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the
Government contract.
 A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed, without delay, to A’s
mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of machine. B unreasonably delays
the delivery of the machine, and A, in consequence, loses a profitable contract with
the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average
amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the
time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the
Government contract.
 A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in
reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to
be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by
way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
 A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in
reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to
be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by
way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
Remedies fall under three heads38
1. Every breach of contract entitles the injured party to damages for the loss he or she
has suffered.
38
Remedies for torts and breach of contract, 2nd edition (1994).
28 | P a g e
2. In certain circumstances the injured party may obtain the enforcement of the promise
by an order for specific performance of the contract, an injunction to retrain its breach
or for the payment of the sum due under the contract.
3. In certain circumstances the parties to a contract that has been broken may be entitled
to the return of money paid, recompense for services rendered or goods transferred, or
a money award reflecting the gain to the defendant. These are restitutionary remedies.
It has been seen that the development of law has been marked by broadening approach to the
concept of loss as it our case the appellant had not only suffered :
 Loss of profit , but has also suffered

 Loss of reputation.
It is further contended that although damages cannot be recovered in the contractual action
for injury to reputation per se39, there was even loss of reputation caused by the breach of
contract causes financial loss40 (in Malik v. Bank of Credit & Commerce International S.A. 41)
this case very well explains the development of the implied obligation of mutual trust and
confidence so that the loss of reputation . It complies to our case as there is a loss of
reputation as well as a loss of profit due to the latent defect of the machine which was
brought to the notice of Mr. Steve Rovers a weak prior to the sale of 3 LPT machines but he
kept silence and consequently on certain occasions, HPC Ltd. encountered frequent problems
with LPT machines .
Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 :-
Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for:- [When a contract has
been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such
breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party
complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have
been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable
compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty
stipulated for. Explanation.— A stipulation for increased interest from the date of default
may be a stipulation by way of penalty.]
39
Addis v. gramophone co. ltd. (1909)
40
Johnson v. Unisys Ltd. (2001)2 W.L.R. 1076
41
(1998)
29 | P a g e
(Exception) — When any person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instrument
of the same nature or, under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the 35 [Central
Government] or of any [State Government], gives any bond for the performance of any
public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable, upon breach of the
condition of any such instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein. Explanation.— A
person who enters into a contract with Government does not necessarily thereby undertake
any public duty, or promise to do an act in which the public are interested. Illustrations
(a) A contracts with B to pay B Rs. 1,000 if he fails to pay B Rs. 500 on a given day. A fails
to pay B Rs. 500 on that day. B is entitled to recover from A such compensation, not
exceeding Rs. 1,000, as the Court considers reasonable.
(b) A contracts with B that, if A practices as a surgeon within Calcutta, he will pay B Rs.
5,000. A practices as a surgeon in Calcutta. B is entitled to such compensation; not exceeding
Rs. 5,000 as the court considers reasonable.
(c) A gives a recognizance binding him in a penalty of Rs. 500 to appear in Court on a certain
day. He forfeits his recognizance. He is liable to pay the whole penalty.
[(d) A gives B a bond for the repayment of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 12 per cent. at the end of
six months, with a stipulation that, in case of default, interest shall be payable at the rate of 75
per cent. from the date of default. This is a stipulation by way of penalty, and B is only
entitled to recover from A such compensation as the Court considers reasonable.
(e) A, who owes money to B, a money-lender, undertakes to repay him by delivering to him
10 maunds of grain on a certain date, and stipulates that, in the event of his not delivering the
stipulated amount by the stipulated date, he shall be liable to deliver 20 maunds. This is a
stipulation by way of penalty, and B is only entitled to reasonable consideration in case of
breach.
(f) A undertakes to repay B a loan of Rs. 1,000 by five equal monthly installments, with a
stipulation that, in default, of payment of any installment, the whole shall become due. This
stipulation is not by way of penalty, and the contract may be enforced according to its terms.
(g) A borrows Rs. 100 from B and gives him a bond for Rs. 200 payable by five yearly
installments of Rs. 40, with a stipulation that, in default of payment of any installment, the
whole shall become due. This is a stipulation by way of penalty.
30 | P a g e
Referring to arguments placed above the appellant prayed in the most humble manner as for
the sake of loss that they have suffered and while talking about the loss the appellant would
like to clarify to that it is not just the monetary loss but also loss of reputation, thus owing to
all the losses suffered the appellant ask for a compensation of $100 M from the respondent.
All of this is most respectfully submitted
31 | P a g e
3rd FACULTY OF LAW(INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018-19 TC-32
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the Facts of the Case, the Arguments Advanced, the
Authorities Cited and the Evidences on Record, it is most respectfully prayed before this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard that by the power vested in it by virtue, it may be
graciously pleased to:
I. Convict the accused for fraud under sec 17 of Indian contract act, 1872.
II. Convict the accused liable for the infringement of petitioner’s fundamental
right guaranteed under article 21 of Constitution of India.
III. Convictthe accused for the loss suffered by the prosecution by awarding a
compensation of $100M.
AND/OR
Pass any other order as it deems fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
Place: Asnard. S/d ______________
Date: 16th November, 2018. (APPLICANT)
32 | P a g e

Before The Hon'Be Supreme Court of Asnard: HPC LTD., & Amy Santiago ..Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Be Supreme Court of Asnard: HPC LTD., & Amy Santiago ..Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Be Supreme Court of Asnard: HPC LTD., & Amy Santiago ..Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3RD FACULTY OF LAW(INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19 TC-32

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

HPC Ltd., & Amy

Civil case under Sections 17 of Asnard Contract Act and Section 21 of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Most Respectfully Submitted To the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Asnard.

husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?.................................................21-25.

S.NO. CASE TITLE CITATION CITED ON

2. Muralidhar Chatterjee v.International film 15th December 1942

5. De bernardv v. harding (1853)

6. Snepp v. united states (444 u.s. 507 (1980)

7. Bhagwan das metals ltd. V. M/S Raghavendra

10. Craven ellis v. canons ltd. 1936

11. Planche v. colbut 1831

12. Sumpter v. hedges 1898

13. Hoemig v. Isaacs 1950

14. Benaras v. kanakiya of saraf 1959

15. M.Gopalan v. state of Kerala 10th April 2002

16. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597

17. Francis Coralie v. Union territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746

18. Bandhua mukti morcha v. union of India 1984 AIR 802

19. Kharak singh v. State of U.P. AIR (1963) SC 129

24. Haley v. London Electricity Board 1965 AC 77

25. Watson v. British boxing board of control 2001 QB 1134

26. Anns v. London electricity board 1965 AC 77

27. Caparo v. Dickman 1990 UKHL 2

28. Dminion natural gas v. Collins and Perkins 1909 AC 640

29. Hadley v. Baxendal 1854 EWHC J70

30. Malik v. Bank of credit & commerce 1998

32. Johnson v. Unisys ltd. (2001) WLR 1076

II. BOOKS REFERRED

• BASU DAS DURGA:INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Lexis

• J.N. PANDEY , CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.

• M.P. SINGH, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

• M.P. JAIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed., 2010), Lexis NexisButterworths

 ANSON'S LAW OF CONTRACT, Oxford university press.

 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, R.K. Bangia

III.LEGAL DICTIONARIES REFERRED

1. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 2002) US: West Group

IV. STATUTES REFERRED

1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract?

Contract Act, 1872?

 delay in the delivery of machine from 5 to 9 days.

information to HPC Ltd.

22nd oct, 2017 all machines malfunctioned.

other party may seek relief by electing to void the contract.

husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract?

 delay in the delivery of machine from 5 to 9 days.

1.2. Cases relating to the delay and malfunctioning of the machine:

three consignments of parachutes and related equipments. petitioner on account of delays in

Fiduciary relationship: In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all

Reasons a Contract Might Be Voidable

Claim on Quantum Meruit arises under the following cases:

(3) Abandonment or refusal of performance of a contract: When one of the parties

The case of Sumpter V. Hedges 18 provides a good example on this point.