Moot Memorial

SUB-DIVISIONAL COURT LD. CIVIL
JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION
SUIT FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
CASE NO. /2021
MR. RAGHAV ….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR.SAM...............................................................................................RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO SUB-DIVISIONAL COURT LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
JUNIOR DIVISION
TC -

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………
 LEGISLATION
 CASES REFERRED
 BOOKS REFERRED
 LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES
 LEGAL DATABASES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………...
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………….
ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………….
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
I. Whethertheoffer given bythe defendant andacceptancecommunicated
by the plaintiff were valid as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
II. Whether the revocation of offer done by the defendant was as per the
provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872?
III. Whether there wasa breach of contract by the defendant?
PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATION
1. Indian Contract Act, 1872
2. Code of Civil Procedure 1908
CASES REFERRED
1. Lord Denning in Entores V Miles Far East Crop – (1995) EWCA CIV3, 2 QB 327
2. Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Dutt (1913) II AW 489
3. Felthouse V. Bindley (1913) II ALJ 489
4. Ram Das Chakrabarti V. Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd. ILR (1887) 9 ALL 366.
5. Airfred Schonlak V. Muthurayna Chetty (1892) 2MLJ 57.
6. Nutakki Sesharatnam V. Sub Collector AIR 1992 SC 131.
7. Powell V. Lee (1908) 99 LT 284.
8. Payne V. Cave (1789) 3T.R.148; 100E.R.502
9. Byrne V. Van Tienhoven (1880) LR5 CPD 344.
10. Dickinson V. Dodds [1874 D.94.]
11. Trentham V. Luxfer.BLR 44(CA) 1992.

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Contract book by RK Bangia
2. Contract and specific relief by Avtar Singh
3. Textbook on law of contract by Dr H.K Saharay
4. Contract law by Robert Duxbury
LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES
1. Bryan A. Garner, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (2nd ed., 2004).
2. Justice R.P. Sethi, SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES, (2nd ed.,
2004).
3. Webster’s UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY, (1st ed., 1993).
LEGAL DATABASES
1. http://www.indiancaselaws.org
2. http://www.judic.nic.in
3. http://www.lexisnexis.com
4. http://www.scconline.co.in

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
J. Justice
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
& And
GOVT Government
ART. Article
HON’BLE Honorable
ANR Another
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Report
CONST. Constitution of Republic
P. Page
ORS Others
CO. Company
V. Versus
NO. Number
CORP. Corporation

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court under Sec.9 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 in
form of a civil application in civil court.
Sec.9 of CPC- Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. - The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil nature excepting suits
of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation 1 — As suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of
a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions
as to religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation 2 — For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place

STATEMENTS OF FACTS
1. On Monday, June 5th at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Sam, M.D. of Toffscar Ltd. Sent a telex of offer to
Mr. Raghav, a regular customer for selling him a rare vintage car for 50,000 euros.
2. Mr. Raghav received the telex on 1:00 p.m. on 5th June and sends a telex accepting the offer
at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 6th.
3. Mr. Sam fails to notice the telex and during the day he receives another offer of 60,000 euros
for the same car by Mr. Sober.
4. Mr. Sam telexes a revocation to Mr. Raghav at 5:30 pm on Tuesday,6th June knowing the
fact that his office remains closed from 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Mr. Sam receives the
revocation telex at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7th.
5. Mr. Sam receives Mr. Raghav's telex at 9:30 a.m. on June 07th.
6. Mr. Sam refuses to sell the car to Mr. Raghav.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY DEFENDANT AND ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNICATED BY THE PLAINTIFF WERE VALID AS PER INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER DONE BY THE DEFENDANT WAS AS
PER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTACT FORMED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF
AND THE DEFENDANT AND WHETHER IT WAS BREACHED?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY DEFENDANT AND ACCEPTANCE
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that although the offer was valid but the
communication of acceptance was not.
II. WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER DONE BY THE DEFENDANT WAS
AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the revocation of offer is done as per the
provision of sec. 5 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 so the revocation is valid.
III. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BREACH OF CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT AS PER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND WHETHER THE
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET DAMAGES?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that there no breach of Contract on behalf of
defendant as the letter of revocation has reached the petitioner before the letter of acceptance
came into knowledge of the respondent so that contract was not valid and there can be no
breach.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY DEFENDANT AND ACCEPTANCE
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the offer given by the defendant is valid
offer under sec. 2(a) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 but the acceptance is not valid offer u/s
2(b) of Indian Contract Act.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key
act regulating Indiancontract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law.
It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises
made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian
Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement which is enforceable by law.
Sec 2(a) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines an offer as, “a proposal made by one person to
another to do an act or abstain from doing it.” The person who makes the offer is known as the
promisor or offeror or and the person to whom an offer is made is known as the promise or the
offeree.
Determination of an Offer (Test of an offer) -
Every proposal made by an offeror is not legally regarded as an offer. Three tests are applied
to determine whether or not an offer has actually been made:
1. Does it create a legal relationship?
It is essential for a valid proposal that it must be made with the intention of creating a legal
relationship otherwise it will only be an invitation. A social invitation may not create a social
relationship. An offer must lead to a contract which creates legal obligations and legal
consequences in the case of non-performance of the contract.
In the givencase, the offer created a legal relationship as the intentionof the offeror was clearly
to create and a contract with the offeree by giving an offer to sell his car.

2. Are terms of offer clear and definite?
Knowledge of the Intention of the parties is very essential as without this the courts will not be
able to decide what the parties want to do. Therefore, the terms of the offer must be clear and
definite and not vague and loose.
In this case the terms of the offer were clear and definite, the offer was to sell a car by the
offeror to the offeree for consideration of 50,000 euros.
3. Whether the offer is communicated or not?
Communication or expression of the willingness by the offeror to enter into a contract or
abstain from doing so is essential for a valid offer. Mere desire or willingness to do or not to
do something is not enough and will not constitute for an offer.
In this case the communicationof the offer was done but the communicationof acceptance was
not so the contract would not be valid.
Hence in the present case all the requisites of a valid offer are being fulfilled hence it was a
valid offer. But the acceptance communicated by the Plaintiff is not valid u/s 2 (b) of The
Indian Contract Act, 1872. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer.
Sec.2(b) ofIndianContract Act states "When the personto whom the proposal is made signifies
his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted, proposal when accepted becomes a
promise" Thus, acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unqualified. It cannot be condition.
And in the given case the plaintiff's acceptance didn't came into the knowledge of the
respondent before the revocation and without the knowledge of respondent about the
acceptance the communication of acceptance was not completed.
Sec.4 of The Indian Contract Act: - Communication of Acceptance The communication of an
acceptance is complete: -
(i) as against the proposer, when it is put in the course of transmission to him, so as to be out
of the power of the acceptor, and
(ii) as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror.

As per the clause it clearly states that when the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the
offeror the acceptance is completed. In this case, the respondent was not aware of the
acceptance of the offer by plantiff made through telex since defendant was not aware of the
acceptance, the communication was not completed as against the acceptor as per sec. 2 of
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Negligence of part of plantiff- The second clause of sec 4 states that communication is
completed as against the acceptor only when the offeror is aware of the acceptance, so it was
the liability of the plantiff to make sure that the respondent was aware of communication of
acceptance and it was a part of negligence onpart ofplantiff. If the plantiff was really interested
in purchase of the car, he should have contacted the respondent and make sure that the
respondent is aware of the acceptance, since he didn't do that, it was negligence on part of the
plantiff. And acting in ignorance of an offer does not amount to acceptance of an offer.
In the case of Lord Denning in Entores v Miles Far East Corp (1995)1 the court has held that
if a man shouts an offer to a man across a river but the reply is not heard because of a plane
flying overhead, there is no contract. The offeree must wait and then shout back his acceptance
so that the offeror can hear it. It can be clearly seen that in this case the court has held that it
is the responsibility of the offeree to communicate the offer to the offeror and if the offeror
doesn't become aware of the acceptance of offer than there will be no contract. So, it is humbly
submitted to the court that since in case, the defendant was not aware of the acceptance then it
was the negligence of the plantiff that he failed to bring into the knowledge of the defendant
that the acceptance was communicated.
The case of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, 2 shows how communication of offer and
knowledge of offer is important in formation of contract- The defendant’s nephew eloped from
his house. The plaintiff (defendant’s servant) was sent to search for the missing boy. After the
plaintiff had left in search of the boy, the defendant announced a reward to anyone who might
find the boy. The plaintiff, who was unaware of this reward, was successful in getting the boy
back. When he found about the reward declared by the defendant, he brought an action against
the defendant to claim the compensation as he had found the boy for no money in advance. The
court held that because the plaintiff did not know of the reward offer, his act of finding the boy
who was lost did not mean he accepted the offer as he only came to know after finding the boy.
1 Entorres v. Miles Far East Crop EWCA CIV 3,2QB 327
2 Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt (1913) II ALJ 489

Thus, he was not entitled to claim the reward. An offer can be accepted only after the same has
come to the knowledge of the offeree, as per contract law. It means that the offer has to be
proposed by the offeror, so that there is acceptance by the other party, the offeree. This case
law shows how communication of offer is essential. Since it was held in this case that a offer
has to be communicated and the offer must be aware of the offer to accept it and form a contract,
so this precedent can be used in the present case that since communication of offer and
knowledge of offer is needed to form a contract so the knowledge of acceptance and the
complete communication of the acceptance is also needed to form a contract and in this case
there was a absence of knowledge of acceptance and communication of acceptance so contract
will not be formed.
Felthouse v. Bindley 3, the court inferred that acceptance of a contract should be communicated
to the offeror himself or to the one whom the offeror has authorised to receive acceptances else,
no contract comes into being. In this case, the plaintiff wrote a letter to his nephew expressing
his desire to buy his horse, moreover, the letter also stated that if no reply is received, he would
assume that his nephew has interests in selling the horse to him. His nephew however,
communicated the auctioneer not to sell the horse as he wanted to sell the horse to his uncle.
However, the auctioneer, by mistake, sold the horse and in a suit against the auctioneer, the
court said that his nephew should have communicated his acceptance to the plaintiff and since,
no communication of acceptance was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff, it did not lead
to the contract formation between them.
In Ram Das Chakrabarti v. Cotton Ginning co. Ltd 4the court held that the offeror becomes
bound when a properly addressed and adequately stamped letter of acceptance is posted.
3 Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869 EWHC CP J35
4 Ram Das Chakraborty v. Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd. ILR (1887) 9 ALL 366.

II. WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OFFER DONE BY THE DEFENDANT WAS
AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
Yes, the revocation of offer is valid as per the provisions of The IndianContract Act, as it done
as per the provision of sec. 5 i.e., Revocation of offer under Indian Contract Act,1872.
Revocation- Where an offer gives the offeror an option to accept within a fixed period, it may
be withdrawn even before the expiry of that period unless there is some consideration for
keeping it open, Airfred schonlank v. Muthurayna Chetty5
Modes of revocation of Offer- The modes of revocation is given u/s 6 of Indian Contract Act;
A proposal is revoked-
(1) by the communication of notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party;
(2) by the lapse of the time prescribed in such proposal for its acceptance, or, if no time is so
prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without communication of the acceptance;
(3) by the failure of the acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent to acceptance; or
(4) by the death or insanity of the proposer, if the fact of his death or insanity comes to the
knowledge of the acceptor before acceptance.
According to Sec.5 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 “proposal may be revoked at any time
before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not
afterwards”. In the present case the acceptance was not communicated to the Defendant by the
Plaintiff therefore the defendant can revoke the offer as per section 5 of The Indian Contract
Act,1872.
Therefore, the revocation of offer done by the Defendant in the present case is
valid as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and as the communication of offer is not completed
and the Defendant is not bound to fulfill the obligation as the contract was not formed and can
revoke his offer.
5 Airfred Schonlak v. Muthurayna Chetty (1892) 2MLJ 57

Under section 4, for the time gap between posting of the letter of acceptance and the delivery
of the letter to the offeror, can be used by the acceptor to revoke his acceptance, provided the
revocation letter reaches the offeror earlier than the letter of acceptance.
In the case of Nutakki Sesharatnam v. Sub collector6, the landowner offered land for
acquisition if the lump sum amount for the land is paid. Plaintiff withdrew the offer before the
Acquisition officer prepared the award of acceptance. The court held that the offer revoked is
valid. Thus, the communication of revocation should reach the offeree before communication
of acceptance.
In the case ofPowell v Lee (1908) 7. The plaintiff applied for a job as headmaster and the school
managers decided to appoint him. One of them, acting without authority, told the plaintiff he
had been accepted. Later the managers decided to appoint someone else. The plaintiff brought
an action alleging that by breach of a contract to employ him he had suffered damages in loss
ofsalary. The countycourt judge held that there was no contract as there had been no authorised
communication of intention to contract on the part of the body, that is, the managers, alleged
to be a party to the contract. This decision was upheld by the King's Bench Division.
A core ruling defining revocation of offers was established by Payne v. Cave8 This case
established that neither party is bound to an agreement until anoffer has been made by one and
formally accepted by the other. If an offer has been made, the offering party has a right to
withdraw it up to formal acceptance by the offeree. Revocation basically serves as formal,
legally verifiable notice that a withdrawal was made, and it's valid so longas it is communicated
to the offeree before they accept.
The case of Byrne v. Van Tienhoven9 supports this by establishing that the withdrawal of an
offer by telegram is only valid if the telegram is received before the offer is accepted. The case
of Dickinson v. Dodds10 further establishes that the party making the offer can communicate
the revocation through a third party.
6 Nutakki Sesharatnam v. Sub Collector AIR 1992 SC 131
7 Powell v. Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
8 Payne V Cave ( 1789 ) 3.T.R.148;100 E.R.502
9 Byrne & Co. V Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880 ) LR5 CPD 344
10 Dickinson v Dodds [1874 D.94.]

III. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BREACH OF CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT AS PER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND WHETHER
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that there was no breach of Contract on behalf
of defendant as it is not a valid contract and the respondent has revoked the contract as per the
provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to get
damages from the Defendant.
VALID CONTRACT
A contract is an agreement made between two or more parties which the law will enforce. Sec
2(h) defines contract “as an agreement enforceable by law”. Basically, a contract unfolds when
an offer by one party is accepted by the other party. The accepted offer should be without any
qualification and be definite. An offer needs to be clear, definite, complete and final. It should
be communicated to the offeree. A proposal when accepted becomes a promise or agreement.
The offer and acceptance must be ‘consensus ad idem’ which means that both the parties must
agree on the same thing in the same sense i.e., identity of wills or uniformity of minds.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there was no contract established as
because the communication made by the offeree or petitioner was not completed. The
acceptance was dispatched but was not completed as because the acceptance letter was not in
the knowledge of the council and hence there was no contract. It is the total responsibility of
the offeree to ensure that the acceptance is completed by confirming it to the knowledge of the
offeror.
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. —When a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has
broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when
they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been
broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has

broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which
naturally arose in the usual course of things from suchbreach, 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.
Therefore under section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 it clearly states that whenever
any party to contract denies to fulfill their obligation due to which the other party suffers the
loss, the party who suffers loss specifically because of non-performance of other party
obligation, the party who suffered loss is entitled to get maintenance from the other party but
in this case the respondent was not aware of the acceptance of offer and the communication
wasn't completely as per class II of sec. 4 of Indian Contract Act and hence the contract wasn't
formed and the respondent wasn't liable to perform the contract and the plantiff has not
occurred any loses so he is not entitled for any damages. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble
court that there was no breach of contract as because there was no legal contract established as
because there was lack of complete communication made by the offeree.
Trentham v Luxfer (1992) 11.To build industrial units and subcontracted the windows to L.
The work was done and paid for. T then claimed damages from L because of defects in the
windows. L argued that even though there had been letters, phone calls and meetings between
the parties, there was no matching offer and acceptance and so no contract. The Court of Appeal
held that the fact that there was no written, formal contract was irrelevant, a contract could be
concluded by conduct. Plainly the parties intended to enter into a contract, the exchanges
between them and the carrying out of instructions in those exchanges, all supported T's
argument that there was a course of dealing between the parties which amounted to a valid,
working contract.
11 Trentham v. Luxfer (1992) BLR 44 (CA 1992)

PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED:
TO REJECT THE APPLICATION OFTHE PETITION FILED BYTHE PETITIONER
AS THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT.
AND/OR
PASS ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. FOR WHICH, THE
COUNSEL SHALL FOREVER PRAY
COUNSELFOR THE RESPONDENT

Moot Memorial

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Moot Memorial

More from Ankit Sha

Recently uploaded

Moot Memorial