You are on page 1of 3

Whether the court has jurisdiction?

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the present complaint is not
maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to try this case as the University in the present
case is a consumer under section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So the
proper forum to try this case is a consumer forum.
Section 2(d) "consumer" means any person who
buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid
and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any
user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration
paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not
include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;
In the present case the complainant falls under the definition of consumer as he has availed
the service of the Mycronous Computers. He purchased the computers by paying a certain
amount of money which forms the consideration in the case. So the present complaint is
maintainable only before the District Consumer Forum and not in City Civil Court.

What are the rights of buyer?

It is must humbly submitted before this Hon,ble Court that the buyer has no rights in the
present case. For a right, there must be cause of action.
Cause of Action
The term Cause of Action refers to a set of facts or allegations that make up the grounds for
filing a lawsuit. A Cause of Action is therefore by its very nature essential to a Civil Suit,
since without a Cause of Action a Civil Suit cannot arise.
The fact that a Cause of Action is essential to a suit is represented in Order II Rule 2 of the
Code wherein it is stated that a plaint must mention the cause of action if it is to be instituted
as a suit. Order VII Rule 1 reaffirms the same. Thus, it can be seen from the beginning that

not only is a Cause of Action an important part of the Civil Suit but is in essence the reason
that the civil suit exists in the first place.
A cause of action is said to consist of two parts, legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff
claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). In the present
case plaintiff has not suffered any legal wrong. Defendant had supplied only those articles
with which is he is use to do business in the regular. It was duty of the plaintiff to aware the
defendant about the particular version of operating system.
So, in the present case, as there is no cause of action and as result of which the suit does not
exist and so there is no right available to the buyer. Untill and unless a cause of action arises,
a buyer cannot claim for its right.
Implied conditions as to quality or fitness An implied condition that goods will be reasonably fit for such purpose is implied into
contracts for sales of goods if:
when the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose
for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or
judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business
to supply (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the
goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.
In the present case, the buyer only mentioned that the operating system must be 3.4. He did
not mentioned that he want an authentic or copied version and so, the seller supplied him the
copied version of the operating system which is in the course of sellers business to supply
and also the version was fit for the purpose of university.
In the case of Harlington v. Christopher1 Hull shows that the implied term may only be
breached if the buyer relied upon the description. The principle enshrined in section 15 of the
Sale of Goods Act with respect to sale by description is that the goods should correspond to
the description, and as a matter of law every item in a description which constitutes a
substantial ingredient in the identity of the identity of the thing sold would be a condition.2
1 [1991] 1 QB 564
2 M/S Sikka Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs National Agricultural