AYASHA KHATRI

19010618

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DWARKA

AT NEW DELHI

CASE CONCERNING FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT

CLAIRE
(PLAINTIFF)
V.
LAURA UNDERWORK
(DEFENDANT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 3

2. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 4

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 5

4. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 6

5. PLEADINGS 10

6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11

2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This case falls under the jurisdiction of District Court of Dwarka, New
Delhi.

3
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID PROPOSAL BY LAURA UNDERWORK?

II. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID ACCEPTANCE BY CLAIRE?
III. WHETHER AN AGREEMENT WAS FORMED UNDER THE INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT?

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Laura Underwook, the defendant, owned a large parcel of undeveloped

land (“Farmland”). On August 9, she offered it to Claire, the plaintiff in
the proceeding, for Rs 1 lakh an acre. Both women signed the following
paper: Laura Underwork hereby offers to sell Farmland to Claire for Rs 1
lakh an acre, cash. Dated: August 9. : Claire considered the deal for two
days.

On August 11, she again met with Claire who wanted assurance that
Laura would not sell to someone else if Claire went out to look at
Farmland. After a long discussion, Laura gave Claire a memorandum
signed by her stating: If Claire will look at Farmland, I’ll keep the offer
open until she’s had awhile to think about it. Claire replied: “Okay. I will
examine Farmland.” On August 11, Claire took the 100-mile round trip to
Farmland and inspected it. On August 12, she made arrangements to
borrow the money to buy Farmland. On August 14, Claire was on her
way to Laura’s home to tell her that she accepted the offer when she
met Laura’s brother. The brother told Claire that on August 13, Laura
had discovered gold on Farmland, so Laura probably wouldn’t be
interested in selling it now. The next day, Claire sent Laura a letter
(received by Laura on August 17) stating: I accept your offer to sell
Farmland for Rs 1 lakh an acre. Laura sent a messenger to Claire as
soon as she received the letter. The messenger, taking the message
from Claire, told Laura that Claire wasn’t going to let her “snap up” the
deal now and will sue Laura for a breach of contract.

5
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. As per the Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act,1872 there was valid
proposal made by Laura Underwork to Claire. It was a specific offer and
both the parties had legal intent when the proposal was made.

II. The offer was revoked by Laura under Section 5 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. It had already come to the knowledge of Claire, before she
communicate her acceptance, about the revocation of the offer through
a third party.

III. In order of form an agreement under Indian Contract Act,1872 Section

10 of the act should be fulfilled. There wasn’t any valid acceptance and
consideration to form a binding contract. Since there was no acceptance
and no consideration, Section 10 of the act is not applicable. Hence no
agreement was formed under Indian Contract Act.

6
 PLEADINGS

A. THERE WAS A VALID PROPOSAL BY LAURA

UNDERWORK.

I. THE PROPOSAL MADE BY LAURA UNDERWOOK WAS VALID AS

IT FULFILLED ALL THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID OFFER.

According to the Indian Contract Act 1872, proposal is defined in Section 2 (a) as
“when one person will signify to another person his willingness to do or not do
something (abstain) with a view to obtain the assent of such person to such an act
or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal or an offer.” There was valid proposal
by Laura Underwork.
The proposal was made by Laura to Claire to sell her land. The proposal was
communicated by her to Claire under Section 3. The communication of the
proposal was complete when it came to the knowledge of Claire under Section
4 of Indian Contract Act.
The proposal was specifically made to Claire by Laura hence this makes it a
specific offer and not a public offer. It clearly stated the Laura’s intention to
sell land to the plaintiff for RS 1 lakh an acre. The intention of the above stated
offer is to create legal obligation and the offer is certain and definite and not
vague.

7
 B. THERE WAS NO VALID ACCEPTENCE BY CLAIRE

II. THERE WAS NO VALID ACCEPTANCE BY CLAIRE AS SHE KNEW

FROM A THIRD PARTY ABOUT THE OFFER BEING REVOKED BY
LAURA UNDERWORK.
The offer can be revoked before the offeror receives the acceptance of the
offeree as per Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act,1872. It has been held that
the offeree loses his power of acceptance if he learns by any way that the offer
has been revoked, if he has reason to know that it does not stand any more, or
even if he has doubts. The standard of a reasonable man is imposed on the
offeree, and if it appears from 'the circumstances of the case that it is
unreasonable to believe that the offer remains valid; the offeree cannot accept
it any longer. In the case of Watters v. Lincoln1the court said: "Plaintiff was
informed . . . that the land had been sold. He was so informed by the tenant
who farmed the land. Information from such a source is more than a common
rumor. It was at least sufficient to put plaintiff upon inquiry."
It was Claire’s duty to investigate whether the offer stands when she found out
from Lauras brother that Laura might not be interested in selling the land
anymore. The courts hold that, in case of doubt, the offer has been revoked. It
was also seen in the the case of Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Clements Paper
Co2 During a telephone conversation with plaintiff's agent one of defendant's
partners expressed doubts whether they would go through with the proposal,
and stated that they had other plans in mind and would let the plaintiff know.
The outcome of the case depended on the construction given to the telephone
conversation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, held that statements uttered
by the offeror amounted to a withdrawal of the offer.
The acceptance was not valid because Claire already had the knowledge about
the revocation of the offer before she put her acceptance in this course of
transmission. Referring to the case Union Of India vs Maddala Thathiah3 the

1
(1912) 29 S.D 98,135 N.W. 712,715
2
(Tenn. 1951) 241 S.W.2d 851
3
(1996) AIR 1724

8
standing offer may be revoked at any time provided that it has not been
accepted in the legal sense. Under Section 4 of the Act, the communication of
revocation of the offer is complete by the Laura. Under Section 6 of the Act,
the revocation of the offer was made by the offeree. Since there was no valid
acceptance, Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Indian Contract Act is also not
satisfied.

C. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT FORMED UNDER THE

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

III. NO AGREEMENT WAS FORMED UNDER THE INDIAN

CONTRACT ACT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VALID ACCPETENCE
AND NO CONSIDERATION TO FROM A BINDING CONTRACT.

In order for a proposal to form a contract, the conditions of Section 10 must be

fulfilled-“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of
the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful
object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.” In the case of
Dickinson v Dodds4 no consideration was given for the promise to keep the
property unsold till 9 o’clock on 12/06. Therefore, it was a promise that is not
legally enforceable for want of consideration. There was no valid contract since
no consideration given for the undertaking or promise. Also, in the case of
Cooke v Oxley5 P gave D a notice of acceptance of the offer before the
deadline, but D, having changed his mind, refused to enter into the
transaction. It was held that no contract was made. The judgement passed by
the court in the case of Alfred Schonlank v Muthunayna Chetti6 it is clear that
in the absence of consideration for the promise to keep the offer open for a
time, the promise is a mere nudum pactum.
It is clearly stated in Section 25 of Indian Contract Act that an agreement
without consideration is void. Since there was no valid acceptance and no

4
(1876) LR 2 Ch D 463
5
(1790) 3 TR 653, 100 ER 785
6
(1892) 2 MILJ 57

9
consideration to bind Laura, no contract was formed. No consideration was
given for the promise to keep the property unsold. Section 2(d) of the act is not
fulfilled because there was no consideration, hence no valid contract.

10
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, and pleadings
presented, the defendant Laura Underwork prays that the petition filed by
Claire for breach of contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 be dismissed
by the Hon’ble District Court of Dwarka, New Delhi.

11