You are on page 1of 8

ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Subject moot of Contracts

Civil Petition no…..

In the Hon’ble District Court of Dehradun

In the Matter of
Sudhir…………………………………………………………Plaintiff
Vs
Mohit……………………………………………………….Defendant

On The Behalf of Plaintiff

1
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Table of contents

1. Statements of Facts…………………………………………… 3
2. Statement of Issues…………………………………………… 4
3. Summary of Arguments……………………………………… 5
4. Argument Advanced………………………………………….. 6
5. Prayer………………………………………………………….

2
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Statement of Facts

1. Mohit a student of 11th class of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vasant Vihar Dehradun. Aged
16 years and 8 months.
2. Sudhir, a rice trader in Palten Bazar.
3. Sudhir entered into a contract with Mohit to sell 500kg of rice at Rs 65/kg
4. Mohit knowingly entered into the contract with Sudhir.
5. Mohit failed to perform his duties towards the contract.

3
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Statement of Issue

1. Whether there is any remedy available for the parties?

4
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Summary of Arguments

1. Whether there is any remedy available for the parties?

The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble District court that there is a loss of
the trader as he was supposed that the rice was to be sold to the defendant but the
defendant failed to perform his duty as this was created a time loss for the plaintiff
Sudhir and the goods are of perishable nature so it also barred the plaintiff to sell it to
other party as he cannot breach the contract.
The contract was breached on the part of the defendant Mohit so he would be liable
for to give compensation to the plaintiff for his loss and breach of contract.

5
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Argument Advanced

1. Whether there is any remedy available for the parties?

The council humbly submits before this Hon’ble District court that the plaintiff is
liable to seek the compensation from the defendant in the followings ways:

1.1 Supply of necessities:


It is the concept given under Section 68 of Indian contract act which states few key
points to establish the main concept of the “Claim for necessaries supplied to person
incapable of contracting, or on his account” the head note of Section 68 clearly states
its meaning and the area it covers in other words it comes with:
 The person is not incapable of entering into the contract.
 The person should be supplied the basic necessities.
 There must be a clarification on the point of the incapability of the person.
In the view of these current points it was clear on the part that the person to whom he
goods were supplied was incapable of entering into the contract as in the present case
it was clear on the point that Mohit was incapable of entering into a contract by the
virtue of Section 11 of Indian Contract Act,
“Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the
law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from
contracting by any law to which he is subject”
In light with the statement of the section 11 of Indian Contract Act it was stated that
Mohit was not capable to enter into the contract. But by the virtue of Section 68 of
Indian Contract act,
“If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or any one whom he is legally
bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his
condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be
reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.”

The concept of basic necessities comes on the point that the plaintiff is selling rice
which is a basic essential and supplying this so it states the contract as valid in the
eyes of law.

6
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

In the present case this was a live example that the goods that are to be supplied to the
defendant Mohit are of necessities as the rice comes under basic food essentials, and
supplying those essential food to a minor was an act done in necessity as the minor
was incapable of earning the necessities for the same as in the case of Mohori Bibi v.
Dhurmodas Ghose1 it was stated that Section 68 applies to minor as well as to persons
of unsound mind and other, similarly in the present case the plaintiff was supplying
the basic necessities to the defendant so the contract cannot be said as ‘void ab initio’
was on a total fail because according to Section 68 of Indian Contract act 1872
This Section clearly states that if a person is supplying the basic necessities to a minor
then he is entitled to reimbursed back. In the present case the plaintiff was selling the
basic necessities and as the contract was breached on the part of defendant then it is
the responsibility of the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the losses as the
plaintiff suffered loss like time loss, as the time was wasted as he has to wait till the
breach for the selling of the rice, if Mohit doesn’t entered into a contract with Sudhir
then he can easily and conveniently with saving his precious time can sell the goods
to the other party as the goods are of perishable nature so there is a chance of getting
distorted or the rice can get rotten.
In the present case the claim on the base of necessity under Section 68 of Indian
Contract Act 1872, the plaintiff is liable for to seek compensation for the loss arises
on the breach of contract by the defendant Mohit.

1.2 The claim for the deduction in the goods:


The fact sheet was clear on this part that the contract was with the knowledge of the
defendant and the plaintiff was ready to sell the rice to the defendant but the contract
breached by the defendant as during the time of contract or the time of the contract,
the parties were known to the fact that the goods are of perishable nature. On the other
hand Mohit failed to perform the duties on his part and due to his breach of contract
there are several losses happened to the plaintiff as the main was in the deduction of
goods as the goods were not sold

1
(1903) 30 Cal 593 : LR 30 IA 114

7
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Prayer

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and
arguments advanced,

It is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to declare
that Mohit is liable to compensate Sudhir for his losses due to the breach of contract.

And pass any other order that it deems fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.