IFHE/IBS, Faculty of Law
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL (RESPONDENTS)
JOHN LOCKE
(PLAINTIFF)
VERSUS
BENJAMIN LINUS
(RESPONDENT)
SUBMITED TO: Prof. Nandini CP BY: P. Aishwariya Shayak Dasgupta
Contents :
The contents of this Memorial in favour of the Respondent are noted below : INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………………………3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………………………4 FACTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………………………………….6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………………………….7, 8 PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Index of Authorities :
CASE LAWS CITED: Guthing vs. Lynn ........................................................................ 8 May & Butcher vs. R ……………………………………………………………… 8 STATUTES/BOOKS REFFERED: INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 BUSINESS LAW, AVTAR SINGH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Statement of Jurisdiction:
The counsel for respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that this Honourable City Civil Court of Mumbai has appropriate jurisdiction to hear this case under Section 26 raised by Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Facts :
John Locke, the Plaintiff here is an avid hunter aged 42 years. He makes a plan to go for a trip for a period of 16 days to Australia. For this trip of his, he wanted a set of 8 knives of various shapes and sizes with custom specifications. Since these were required for hunting purposes, he had to visit numerous hardware stores. Upon not finding his weapons of desire, he initiated a search on the same, via the Internet. He came across a website named Dharma Knives, a sole proprietorship which catered to the various custom needs and specifications for hunting knives .However, no prices for any knives were mentioned on the webpage so he contacted the e-mail address listed on the webpage for enquiries. He sent an e-mail on the mentioned address on 1 September 2011 stating that he is in dire need of a set of 8 knives molded to his custom specifications on 20th September 2011. He notified the fact that he could only spend upto Rs. 4815 and not a dime more. He also placed an inquiry on whether Cash-on-Delivery services were provided or not. He received an e-mail within 4 days from the following as a response from my client briefing him that the knives can be delivered on the pre-mentioned date with the custom specifications. Only the delivery charges would increase his bill to Rs. 5045 and the Cash-on-Delivery scheme was also applicable. A certain e-mail address was also forwarded to him ([email protected]) so that he could present his address in detail which was necessary for home delivery. John Locke sent an e-mail to the newly mentioned address which enclosed his residential address in detail on 6 September 2011. One week after the aforesaid communication, on 13 September my client sent another e-mail to John Locke which mentioned that since there was no further exchange of views over the related matter, a proper order was required to be placed so that the production process could be initiated. Another major highlight in this sent e-mail was the hike in price. My client clearly notified that due to the strike in steel mills, there was a rise in the prices of knives as they were made of the same metallurgy and as he required them on a prescribed date. The cost of the knives with custom specifications were now raised to Rs. 8415. On receiving this e-mail, John Locke reacted on 14 September 2011 by replying that he has no means of increasing his budget and that he was under the impression that the knives were made and were getting prepared for delivery. He still expected the knives to be delivered on the address enclosed in the e-mail on that day and at the same price. Otherwise, he would sue the proprietor of the firm.
th th th st
Issues Raised :
The issues raised in favour of the Respondent are listed below : ? ? Humbly plead to the court to dismiss the case as it does not withhold any base on the grounds of law or on the basis of facts. The very necessity of a valid contract is adequate consideration and lawful object. The issue raised here, in this case is whether the consideration is appropriate and adequate or not and if the object of the contract is lawful or not. Presence of declining certainty with passage of time in the contract. Agreements are void if there is presence of ambiguity and uncertainty.
? ?
Arguments Advanced :
The contract between Mr. John Locke and my client Mr. Benjamin Linus was never formed because of the following key points which are mentioned below. These favour the Respondent’s case as it represents the flaws which make the contract void. ? Humbly plead to the court to dismiss the case as it does not withhold any base on the grounds of law or on the basis of facts.
As mentioned in Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be : (1) Absolute and Unqualified (2) Be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner to which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance isn’t made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in a prescribed manner, and not otherwise, but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance. In the present scenario, the acceptance of the order placed by Mr. John Locke, the plaintiff in relation to sale of knives at a quoted price and within a given period of time from my client, the respondent, is not ABSOLUTE. In this case, both the parties to the contract did not reach a final agreement, which would finalize the contract. There was negligence on the part of both the parties as neither the plaintiff nor the respondent took any initiative to turn their conversation into a valid contract. There was an absence of consensus relating to the knives as well as acceptance of the contract altogether. Thus, this was never more than mere acceptance of the invitation to offer forwarded by John Locke to Benjamin Linus, my client.
?
The very necessity of a valid contract is adequate consideration and lawful object. The issue raised here, in this case, is whether the consideration is appropriate and adequate or not and if the object of the contract is lawful or not.
According to Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872 What considerations and objects are lawful and what not – The consideration or object of agreement is lawful, unless – (1) It is forbidden by law ; or (2) It is of a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law; or is fraudulent ; or (3) Involves or implies injury to the person or property of another ; or the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
In the present case, Mr. Locke is purchasing a set of 8 knives for hunting purposes during his trip to Australia. He has mentioned his object, which is hunting, very clearly. Now, it is upto the honorable court to take up a judgement with regard to hunting as it is not a moral act and could lead to various unpleasant consequences. It is important to know whether he has the required licenses to carry out such activities. Consideration, in this case is also inadequate. No proper agreement has been reached by both the parties in this regard other then the plaintiff mentioning that he can only spare Rs. 4815. On mentioning the additional delivery charges also, no reaction was obtained. Moreover, if the plaintiff was serious about the transaction then he would have given adequate advance as consideration as a proof of commitment. No such gesture is noticed over here. ? Presence of declining certainty with passage of time in the contract.
In the contract a specific time period is mentioned within which the knives have to be delivered. Since the acceptance of the contract was not clearly stated, there was declining assurance with regard to the contract. Thus the raw materials required for forging the knives into the custom specifications were not purchased. When the respondent re-sends his query relating to the sale of the knives, he mentions the hike in prices which the plaintiff does not comply with. Thus he ends the contract by not agreeing to the terms of the new contract. There was no contract formed initially, and none later either. ? Agreements are void if there is presence of ambiguity and uncertainty. The Indian Contracts Act 1872 clearly states in Section 29 : Agreements void for uncertainty. –Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. In the following cases, the contract was charged to be void due to uncertainties present. ? Guthing vs Lynn : A horse was bought and it was decided that £5 would be paid extra if the horse turned out lucky. Since luck cannot be measured to be good or bad, the contract was dismissed as void, due to uncertainties. May & Butcher vs R. : There was an agreement for the sale of tentage with a stipulation that the price, dates of payment and the manner of delivery “shall be discussed from time to time”. The agreement was held devoid of all content, ruled as void.
?
Thus, in this case also many such intricate details have been missed out as no certainty was showered upon them. They are listed below : ? ? ? The cost of each, individual knife which were a part of the transaction. There was a huge barrier to proper communication as it was only conversations via the Internet. Inclusion and interaction with Mr. Richard Alpert and his incompetency of not forwarding the order or giving a feedback, or doing so in a very vague manner made the contract even more ambiguous and uncertain. The mode of Delivery and Payment were also not highlighted making the contract uncertain, again.
?
This highlights the vagueness of the contract and brings out the ambiguity and uncertainty shrouded in this contract. Hence, it can be termed void.
Prayer :
Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated, issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this honorable City Civil Court of Mumbai that it may : ? Quash the suit filed by the Plaintiff on the basis of it not being admissible in court. It is just a waste of the worthy time and honorary services presented by the Court and does not hold any worthy case of breach of contract in lamine.
.
doc_840870472.docx
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL (RESPONDENTS)
JOHN LOCKE
(PLAINTIFF)
VERSUS
BENJAMIN LINUS
(RESPONDENT)
SUBMITED TO: Prof. Nandini CP BY: P. Aishwariya Shayak Dasgupta
Contents :
The contents of this Memorial in favour of the Respondent are noted below : INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………………………3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………………………4 FACTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………………………………….6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………………………….7, 8 PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Index of Authorities :
CASE LAWS CITED: Guthing vs. Lynn ........................................................................ 8 May & Butcher vs. R ……………………………………………………………… 8 STATUTES/BOOKS REFFERED: INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 BUSINESS LAW, AVTAR SINGH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Statement of Jurisdiction:
The counsel for respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that this Honourable City Civil Court of Mumbai has appropriate jurisdiction to hear this case under Section 26 raised by Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Facts :
John Locke, the Plaintiff here is an avid hunter aged 42 years. He makes a plan to go for a trip for a period of 16 days to Australia. For this trip of his, he wanted a set of 8 knives of various shapes and sizes with custom specifications. Since these were required for hunting purposes, he had to visit numerous hardware stores. Upon not finding his weapons of desire, he initiated a search on the same, via the Internet. He came across a website named Dharma Knives, a sole proprietorship which catered to the various custom needs and specifications for hunting knives .However, no prices for any knives were mentioned on the webpage so he contacted the e-mail address listed on the webpage for enquiries. He sent an e-mail on the mentioned address on 1 September 2011 stating that he is in dire need of a set of 8 knives molded to his custom specifications on 20th September 2011. He notified the fact that he could only spend upto Rs. 4815 and not a dime more. He also placed an inquiry on whether Cash-on-Delivery services were provided or not. He received an e-mail within 4 days from the following as a response from my client briefing him that the knives can be delivered on the pre-mentioned date with the custom specifications. Only the delivery charges would increase his bill to Rs. 5045 and the Cash-on-Delivery scheme was also applicable. A certain e-mail address was also forwarded to him ([email protected]) so that he could present his address in detail which was necessary for home delivery. John Locke sent an e-mail to the newly mentioned address which enclosed his residential address in detail on 6 September 2011. One week after the aforesaid communication, on 13 September my client sent another e-mail to John Locke which mentioned that since there was no further exchange of views over the related matter, a proper order was required to be placed so that the production process could be initiated. Another major highlight in this sent e-mail was the hike in price. My client clearly notified that due to the strike in steel mills, there was a rise in the prices of knives as they were made of the same metallurgy and as he required them on a prescribed date. The cost of the knives with custom specifications were now raised to Rs. 8415. On receiving this e-mail, John Locke reacted on 14 September 2011 by replying that he has no means of increasing his budget and that he was under the impression that the knives were made and were getting prepared for delivery. He still expected the knives to be delivered on the address enclosed in the e-mail on that day and at the same price. Otherwise, he would sue the proprietor of the firm.
th th th st
Issues Raised :
The issues raised in favour of the Respondent are listed below : ? ? Humbly plead to the court to dismiss the case as it does not withhold any base on the grounds of law or on the basis of facts. The very necessity of a valid contract is adequate consideration and lawful object. The issue raised here, in this case is whether the consideration is appropriate and adequate or not and if the object of the contract is lawful or not. Presence of declining certainty with passage of time in the contract. Agreements are void if there is presence of ambiguity and uncertainty.
? ?
Arguments Advanced :
The contract between Mr. John Locke and my client Mr. Benjamin Linus was never formed because of the following key points which are mentioned below. These favour the Respondent’s case as it represents the flaws which make the contract void. ? Humbly plead to the court to dismiss the case as it does not withhold any base on the grounds of law or on the basis of facts.
As mentioned in Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be : (1) Absolute and Unqualified (2) Be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner to which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance isn’t made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in a prescribed manner, and not otherwise, but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance. In the present scenario, the acceptance of the order placed by Mr. John Locke, the plaintiff in relation to sale of knives at a quoted price and within a given period of time from my client, the respondent, is not ABSOLUTE. In this case, both the parties to the contract did not reach a final agreement, which would finalize the contract. There was negligence on the part of both the parties as neither the plaintiff nor the respondent took any initiative to turn their conversation into a valid contract. There was an absence of consensus relating to the knives as well as acceptance of the contract altogether. Thus, this was never more than mere acceptance of the invitation to offer forwarded by John Locke to Benjamin Linus, my client.
?
The very necessity of a valid contract is adequate consideration and lawful object. The issue raised here, in this case, is whether the consideration is appropriate and adequate or not and if the object of the contract is lawful or not.
According to Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872 What considerations and objects are lawful and what not – The consideration or object of agreement is lawful, unless – (1) It is forbidden by law ; or (2) It is of a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law; or is fraudulent ; or (3) Involves or implies injury to the person or property of another ; or the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
In the present case, Mr. Locke is purchasing a set of 8 knives for hunting purposes during his trip to Australia. He has mentioned his object, which is hunting, very clearly. Now, it is upto the honorable court to take up a judgement with regard to hunting as it is not a moral act and could lead to various unpleasant consequences. It is important to know whether he has the required licenses to carry out such activities. Consideration, in this case is also inadequate. No proper agreement has been reached by both the parties in this regard other then the plaintiff mentioning that he can only spare Rs. 4815. On mentioning the additional delivery charges also, no reaction was obtained. Moreover, if the plaintiff was serious about the transaction then he would have given adequate advance as consideration as a proof of commitment. No such gesture is noticed over here. ? Presence of declining certainty with passage of time in the contract.
In the contract a specific time period is mentioned within which the knives have to be delivered. Since the acceptance of the contract was not clearly stated, there was declining assurance with regard to the contract. Thus the raw materials required for forging the knives into the custom specifications were not purchased. When the respondent re-sends his query relating to the sale of the knives, he mentions the hike in prices which the plaintiff does not comply with. Thus he ends the contract by not agreeing to the terms of the new contract. There was no contract formed initially, and none later either. ? Agreements are void if there is presence of ambiguity and uncertainty. The Indian Contracts Act 1872 clearly states in Section 29 : Agreements void for uncertainty. –Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. In the following cases, the contract was charged to be void due to uncertainties present. ? Guthing vs Lynn : A horse was bought and it was decided that £5 would be paid extra if the horse turned out lucky. Since luck cannot be measured to be good or bad, the contract was dismissed as void, due to uncertainties. May & Butcher vs R. : There was an agreement for the sale of tentage with a stipulation that the price, dates of payment and the manner of delivery “shall be discussed from time to time”. The agreement was held devoid of all content, ruled as void.
?
Thus, in this case also many such intricate details have been missed out as no certainty was showered upon them. They are listed below : ? ? ? The cost of each, individual knife which were a part of the transaction. There was a huge barrier to proper communication as it was only conversations via the Internet. Inclusion and interaction with Mr. Richard Alpert and his incompetency of not forwarding the order or giving a feedback, or doing so in a very vague manner made the contract even more ambiguous and uncertain. The mode of Delivery and Payment were also not highlighted making the contract uncertain, again.
?
This highlights the vagueness of the contract and brings out the ambiguity and uncertainty shrouded in this contract. Hence, it can be termed void.
Prayer :
Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated, issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this honorable City Civil Court of Mumbai that it may : ? Quash the suit filed by the Plaintiff on the basis of it not being admissible in court. It is just a waste of the worthy time and honorary services presented by the Court and does not hold any worthy case of breach of contract in lamine.
.
doc_840870472.docx