D1

IN THE HON’BLE DISCTRICT COURT OF DELHI

COMPANY Z ...................................................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
Mr. DEEP………….…...................................................................................DEFENDANT

2019

Most Respectfully Submitted before the Hon’ble District Court

___________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DRAWN AND FILLED BY
THE COUNSELS OF THE DEFENDANT
__________________________________________________________________________________

3RD DE NOVO MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

[1]
___________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________________

I. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................. 3

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 4

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... 5

IV STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...............................................................................................................6

V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 6

I. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................…...7

VII. PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………11

[2]
___________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________

CASES CITED

Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose 1903 ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

Mathai Mathai vs Joseph Mary (2015) 5 SCC 622

Bhudra Chand vs Betts (1915) 22 Cal LJ 566: 33 IC347

AK Lakshmipathy v Rai Saheb Pannalal Scc 287,295: IR 2010 SC 577

Colles Cranes of India Ltd. Vs Speedo Spares Corp. AIR 1970 Cal 321

Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. Vs Ganesh Das AIR 1961 Pat 107

Dularia Devi vs Janardan Singh AIR 1990 SC 1173

Prem Singh vs Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353,359 : AIR 2006 SC 3608

Sheikh brothers Ltd. v/s Ochsner (1957) A.C. 136

[3]
 BOOKS REFERRED

MULLA
1.
The Indian Contract Act (15th edition)
Lexis Nexis Publications Ltd.

2.
Law of Contract & Specific Relief by Avtar Singh (9 th edition)
Eastern Book Company Ltd.

STATUTES REFERRED

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. Indian Contract Act,1872

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________________

THE PLAINTIFF HAS FILED THIS SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER SECTION-6 OF
CPC, OVER THE APPLICABLE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION THE DEFENDENTS
MAINTAIN THAT IT IS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHICH IS TO BE
EVOKED . THEREFORE, THIS HON’BLE COURT NEED NOT ENTRATAIN ITS
JURISDICTION IN THIS SUIT.

_________________________________________________________________________________

[4]
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
___________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Deep is a 17 yr old boy living in City X, who is a computer genius and eager to
learn.
2. One day he finds an online advertisement for freelance app development for company
Z. Interested in this prospect he contacts company Z regarding the advertisement.
3. Mr Deep is informed that to qualify to work as a freelancer he first needs to clear a
phone interview with the company VC.
4. Interview is held on 15/4/2019 where Mr Deep manages to successfully clear the
interview and hence qualifies to work as a freelancer with company Z.
5. The phone interview and all such further correspondence with Mr Deep is recorded as
per company policy. It is also a policy of the company to not to enter into contract
with minors.
6. Contract for the same is sent to Mr Deep by post which he signs on 16/5/2019, and
posts back the signed contract duly received by the company.
7. Deep at a later stage is informed by the company that he has to submit a prototype of
the app by 31/8/2019 and hence receives an advance of Rs 50,000 in pursuance of the
same.
8. Deep turns 18 on 23/7/2019.
9. Realizing that he will not be able to submit the prototype by the said deadline, he Mr
Deep sought extension of 2 weeks on 30/8/2019 and promises to submit the prototype
by 15/9/2019. Mr Deep further asks for an amount of Rs 10,000 in order to complete
the prototype. By then company Z had already started off with the promotion and
processing of the app.
10. On 14/9/2019 company Z files suit for damages and recovery of Rs 2,00,000 (Rupees
Two Lakhs Only) in court in, Delhi accusing Mr Deep of breach of contract.

[5]
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the suit is maintainable before the Hon’ble District Court of Delhi ?

2. Whether Mr Deep is liable at all due to his incompetency?

3. Whether time can be taken as to be essence of the contract for which damages
are sought, and any fault in the same?

4. Whether there is mistake as to matter of fact essential to the agreement which

the company deems legally enforceable?

__________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
________________________________________________

ISSUE 1: It is submitted that the suit for damages by company Z is not maintainable as the
geographical location from where company Z operates is not known and hence resulting in
uncertainty. While Mr Deep signed the said agreement that was sent by post at his residence
in city X and also the terms of the agreement demand him to work from his residence. Hence
the cause of action arises at city X, that is where Mr Deep resides as per section (20) of the
Civil Procedure Code , which states, further section (20) (a) further elaborates as to the local
limitations of the defendant in congruence to the provisions of above mentioned sec-20 of CPC.
Hence as per the territorial jurisdiction the suit is not maintainable before this hon’ble court.

[6]
ISSUE 2: It is humbly submitted that the defendant that is Mr Deep was not competent to enter into
the said agreement due to his minority as elicited in Sec-11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Further
due to the same provision the said contract for the breach of which Mr Deep has been sued for damages
cannot ever be materialized due to being void ab initio.

ISSUE 3: It is humbly submitted that the said agreement advanced by the company was contingent in
nature with the company being the promisor and Mr Deep being the promisee. As extension was saiught
by Mr Deep the counsel humbly submits time as being of essence in the said agreement which the
company deems legally enforceable hence making the same voidable at the instance of Mr Deep.

ISSUE 4: It is humbly submitted that there was a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the said
contract for the breach of which Mr Deep has been sued as Mr Deep honestly believed himself to be
eligible due to no such publication of the company’s policy of not engaging with minors in record hence
as per the provisions of Sec-20 of the Indian Contract Act the said contract which the company deems
as being made stands void.

_________________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
__________________________________________________

ISSUE 1: Whether the suit is maintainable under Hon'ble District Court of Delhi?

The counsel would humbly like to submit that as mentioned in the section 20 of Civil Procedure Code
1908 that, “ suits to be instituted where the defendant reside or cause of action arises” , further it
elaborates in subclause (a) of the section 20 that, “ subject to the limitations aforesaid, every sit shall
be instituted in Court within the local limits of jurisdiction:-the defendant , or each of the defendants
where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
resided, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.”
In light of the suit tabled before this hon’ble court, the location of operation of company Z is not known
whereas the defendant that is Mr Deep in pursuance of the contract advanced by company Z which was
duly signed by him at his residence situated in city X while also worked in the capacity of a freelance
app developer used to conduct his business with regard to the agreement that the company deems legally
enforceable from his own residence situated in city Z. Hence following the provisions of Sec-20 of CPC
making city X to be the location where the cause of action arises. As per the above stated section the
cause of action arises at the local limits of the city X making the jurisdiction lie at the city X. the
opposing counsel has appealed in the Hon'ble District Court of Delhi, which as per the territorial
jurisdiction is not under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble District Court of Delhi hence not maintainable, as it
does not comes under the ambit of the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

[7]
ISSUE 2: Whether Mr Deep is liable at all due his incompetency which makes contract void ab
initio?

The counsel would humbly like to submit that pertaining to the given provisions of section
(10) which defines what agreements be legally enforced to become contracts & section (11)
which throws light on persons who are competent to contract, of the Indian Contract Act
1872 a contract with a minor cannot be materialized as sec-11 of the Indian Contract Act
clearly says, “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.” Which renders a contract with a minor not
enforceable legally.
It is in the authoritative case of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose(1)(2) it was held that
contract with minor is no contract at all as it goes against the provisions of sec-11 of Indian
Contract Act to which extent it is void ab initio.
the same usual industry practices for hiring individual for the freelance app development,
hence he is justified in his actions.

1. 1903 ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

2. Mathai Mathai vs Joseph Mary, (2015) 5 SCC 622

[8]
ISSUE 3

Whether time can be taken as being the essence of the said contract for which damages are
sought?

The counsel would like to humbly submit alternative argument towards the issue that is, if at all an
agreement was legally materialized into a contract which the company deems it did, with the signing
of the said agreement sent by the company Z by post and if at all it was breached by the conduct of Mr
Deep. The advertisement served as an invitation to offer which in this scenario was contingent in nature
as per sec- 31 of the Indian contract act, 1872 which reads, “A contingent contract is a contract to do
or not to do something if some event collateral to such contract does or does not happen.” As the
counsel humbly submits that it was the company Z who sent the contract in the light of which they
shared the relationship of promisor and promisee with the company being promisor and Mr. Deep being
promisee. As the counsel has humbly submitted to established before this honourable bench the
contingent nature of the agreement, moving forward the counsel would also submit to establish before
this honourable court , time as being the essence of the contract as an extension of fifteen days was
sort by Mr. Deep which it elicits the timely nature of the said agreement where the well known authority
that the case of Bhudra Chand vs Betts(3)(4)(5)(6) throws some light as to how time can be essence as in
this case it was held that “ This conclusion is confirmed by the circumstance that the defendant obtained
an extension of time; if the time were not the essence of the contract, he need not have asked for the
extension of time.”

3. (1915) 22 Cal LJ 566: 33 IC347

4. AK Lakshmipathy v Rai Saheb Pannalal, 1 Scc 287,295: IR 2010 SC 577 (time as essence)
5. Colles Cranes of India Ltd. Vs Speedo Spares Corp., AIR 1970 Cal 321
6. Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. Vs Ganesh Das, AIR 1961 Pat 107

[9]
Hence such an agreement which is time bound and contingent in nature stands voidable at the instance
of the promisee as per the sec 55 of the Indian Contract Act which says, “Effect of failure to perform
at a fixed time, in contract in which time is essential.” To which the counsel submits as an agreement
was voidable at the instance of Mr. Deep . The onus of negotiating such terms as to extension rested
upon the company Z which it failed in doing so.

4. Whether there is mistake as to matter of fact essential to the agreement which the
company deems legally enforceable and impossibility of performance.

4.1 Mistake of Fact

The counsel humbly submits that even in the eventuality that a legally enforceable agreement
could have been formed due to the honest belief of Mr. Deep that he is eligible for working as
a freelancer for company Z since there was no publication of company’s policy to the same
effect to Mr. Deep, hence the agreement itself was void in nature and could not be
materialised, as sec-20 of the Indian Contract Act reads , “ Agreement void where both
parties are under mistake as to matter of fact.”

Which the counsel would humbly like to submit that the said agreement could never be
materialized as pertaining to mistake of parties to a fact essential to the agreement there was
no consensus ad idem as taking accordance from the case of Dularia Devi vs Janardan
Singh(7)(8), where it was held that the sale deed executed was totally void, because, “ the
plaintiff-appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never intended to enter into a
contract to which she unknowingly became a party.” hence rendering the agreement void as
in this case the essential fact was the policy of the company Z of not engaging with the
minors which was never furnished to Mr. Deep due to which he unknowingly became a party
to a contract which he never intended.

4.2 Supervening circumstances, impossibility of performance.

Also as performance of the said agreement was to be carried by Mr. Deep in the form of
prototype which is rather different from an actual product, the technology had to be built
ground up which could not be well predicted within the time period the same which was
realised by Mr. Deep on 30th August 2019 as the performance became physically impossible
which was mutual mistake in the very formation of the said agreement, hence rendering it
void as has been elicited in the case of Sheikh brothers Ltd. v/s Ochsner(9) where due to
physical impossibility of performance the Privy Council decided the case on the provision of
sec(20) of the Indian Contract Act which was held void due to mutual mistake.

7. 1990 Supp SCC 216,220 : AIR 1990 SC 1173

8. Prem Singh vs Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353,359 : AIR 2006 SC 3608
9. (1957) A.C. 136, an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa

[10]
_______________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER
_______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble District Court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:-

1. The liabilities of Mr Deep are exempted due to his incapacity.

2. There is no estoppel against Mr Deep.

OR
Grant any such relief as the court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity and Good conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE DEFENDANTS SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER
PRAY.

[11]
 All of which is most humbly prayed
Counsel for the Defendants

[12]