TEAMCODE: 33

3rd FACULTY OF LAW (INTRA) MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018-19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

HPC Ltd., & Amy Santiago

.......................Petitioner

versus

Steve Rovers
………………….Respondent

As submitted to the chief Justice & other Companion judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asnard

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE PETITION ER -

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Page

QUESTION PRESENTED

THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT, THE FOLLOWING QUERIES:

1. WHETHER FRAUD WAS COMMITTED BY Mr. STEVE ROVERS UNDER

SECTION 17 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?

2. WHETHER THE CONTRACT DATED 14th AUGUST 2017 VOIDABLE AT THE

OPTION OF Mr. TONY SNARK?

3. WHETHER Mr. STEVE ROVERS IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE AMY

SANTIAGO FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND ANDHER CONSEQUENT
LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD?

4. WHETHER Mr. STEVE ROVERS, BEING THE SUPPLIER AND SERVICE

PROVIDER OF LPT MACHINES, IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE Mr. TONY
SNARK FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?

W RI T T E N S U B M I S S I O N S O N B E H A L F O F T H E PE T I T I O
NER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………..

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..........................................................................

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS … … … … ...................................................

1. WHETHER FRAUD WAS COMMITTED BY Mr. STEVE ROVERS UNDER SECTION

17 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?

2. WHETHER THE CONTRACT DATED 14 th AUGUST 2017 VOIDABLE AT THE

OPTION OF Mr. TONY SNARK?

3. WHETHER Mr. STEVE ROVERS IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE AMY SANTIAGO

FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND ANDHER CONSEQUENT LOSS OF
LIVELIHOOD?

4. WHETHER Mr. STEVE ROVERS, BEING THE SUPPLIER AND SERVICE

PROVIDER OF LPT MACHINES, IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE Mr. TONY SNARK
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

E. That the impugned law is passed by an incompetent authority ....................................17

F. That the Human Rights of the people will be violated..................................................18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF.................................................................................................................... XI

-W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iii of xi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Indian Cases

Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 127; ...................................................7

Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura and Ors.,
(1972) 2 SCC 442...................................................................................................................9
Amar Chandra v. Collector of Excise, Tripura, AIR 1972 SC 1863. ........................................2
Anuj Garg and Ors. v. Hotel Association of India and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 1.........................13
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 727
............................12
B. Viswanathiah v. State of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 358 ......................................................3
B.N. Agarwal, J. in State of Punjab v. Devand Modern Breweries, (2004) 11 SCC 26..........17
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1325. ................................................9
Balakrishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 Mad 565.............................................................13
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123. ..............................16
Bhola Prasad v. R. (1942) F.C.R 17 ..........................................................................................3
Bihar Distillery & Another v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1208.
...............................4
Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Om Parkash & Ors, Etc, AIR 1969 SC 33.......................17
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] 1 SCR 759.
...........................................13
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commr. and the Chief Commr. Ajmer, 1954 SCR 873;......3
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC
720...............17
Gurumukh Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI), 2006 (108(4)) BomLR 3702;..................9
Guruswamy & Co. v. State of Mysore, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 548
....................................................3
Gwalior Ryan Mills v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, AIR 1974 SC 1660 ....................7
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554. ..................................................13
Har Shankar and Ors. etc. v. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Ors., [1975]
3 SCR 254. ..........................................................................................................................10
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1.
...................................15
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, [1980] 3
SCR
331..........................................................................................................................................3
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080 ...............................2
Kharak Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1295. ............................................................17
Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574. .......................................3, 4,
10
Kishori Shetty v. R. (1949) F.C.R 650 ......................................................................................3

- W RI TTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iv of xi

Krishna Kumar Narula Etc v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1967 SCR (3) 50 .....3,
14
M/s. Dwarka Pd. Laxmi Narain v. State of U.P. & others, 1954 S.C.R. 803
(2).....................12
Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1970 (1) SCR 156...............................12
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others v. The State of Bihar, 1959 S.C.R. 629 (4).
......................12
N.K. Doongaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 M.P. 1
.................................................4
Nagaraj K. v. State of A.P., AIR 1985 SC 551........................................................................17
Narendra Kumar and others v. The Union of India and others, 1960 SCR (2) 375.
...............13
Nawn Estates (P) Ltd v. C.I.T., West Bengal, AIR 1977 SC 153. ..........................................12
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.........................................15
Om Prakash Pahwa v. State of Delhi, (1998) 46 DRJ 719.
.......................................................6
Orissa v. Hari Narayan Jaiswal, AIR 1972 SC 816. .................................................................3
P.N. Kaushal v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1457;................................................................7
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, 1957 SCR 930. ................................................13
Raj Pal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1263.............................9
Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor, (2011) 10 SCC 1........................................................5
Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1325........................12
Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 560. ................................................................7
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831...............................................................6
Sheo Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 All 386.
......................................................................9
Siddeshwari Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1019. ................................2
Smt. Kaushailiya v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 All 71................................................................13
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709..............................8
State of Assam v. A. N. Kidwai, Commissioner Of Hills Division And Appeals, (1957) SCR
295;.........................................................................................................................................3
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, (1951) S.C.R 682. ........................................................2, 3,
5
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn. and Ors, (2013) 8 SCC
519..................................................................................................................................13, 15
Sunny Markose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 Ker. 379 ............................................................4
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC
109...........10
Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Workmen, AIR 1972 SC 1917 ...........................................................7
Thakur Amarasinghji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1955 SC 504 ................................................2
The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318..................................10
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
...........................................9
Tirbhuwan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 540. ...........................................2

-W RITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page v of xi

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Raman Kantilal Bhandari, 1991(35) ECR 212 (Bombay)
(Bom. HC)............................................................................................................................11

Foreign Cases

Australian National Airways Proprietory Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (No 1), (1945) 71 CLR
29............................................................................................................................................7
Brownsea Haven Properties v. Pools Corporation, (1958) 1 All ER 205..................................2
Mulane v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 903...........................................................................11
Ruppert v. Caffey, Inc., 251 U.S. 264, 282-283, 40 S.Ct. 141, 64 L.Ed. 260. ........................11
Wayne v. United States, 138 F.2d 1 (8th Circuit, Court of Appeals).
.....................................11

Books

ALAN F. WESTIN, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM (Atheneum, 1967) ................................................18

th
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (9 ed. 2009)..............................................................................1, 2
th
D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14 ed. 2009)…………………………………….. 11
HAROLD J. LASKI, LIBERTY IN THE MODERN STATE (Routledge, 2014)...................................18
JOSEPH D. BEASLEY, HOW TO DEFEAT ALCOHOLISM: NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES (Times
Books, 1990). .......................................................................................................................17
th
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7 ed. 2014)……………………………………………...4

Articles

E.J.Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity 39 N.Y. UNIV. L. REV. 962, 971
(1964). ..................................................................................................................................18
Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy 4 HARVARD L. REV. 193-220
(1890). ....................................................................................................................................
..........18
Reports & Other Authorities

Alcohol Consumption Factsheet, Institute of Alcohol Studies, London, U.K. (Aug. 2013).
..11
Country Profile, India, World Health Organization, available at
http://www.who.int/countries/ind/en/ (last accessed, 26.09.2016). .....................................11

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
th
Health and Human Services (7 ed. 2010)...........................................................................11

Joseph Pappy Corbitt, Medications Containing Alcohol, THE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS’

SERVICES PROGRAM, available at
https://www.rbhmonitoring.com/Content/Oregon/Resources/Medications%20Containing%

-W RITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page vi of xi

20 Alcohol%20and%20Options%20Without%20Alcohol.pdf (last accessed, 26.09.2016).

..............................................................................................................................................16

The Dublin Principles, National College of Ireland and the International Center for Alcohol
Policies (1997)......................................................................................................................14

The Kerala Bar Hotels Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 2016 SC 163.
........................................................................................................................................11, 14

-W RITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Page vii of xi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 134(A) of the constitution of India,
1950. Subsequently, the leave has been granted by the Court.

- W RI T T E N S U B M I S S I O N S O N B E H A L F O F T H E P E T I T I O N E R
S-
STATEMENT OF FACT Page viii of xi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

HPC Ltd., managed by Mr. Tony Snark in Asnard, is a leading company which manufactures
certain medicines including Lobanza that reduces addiction of narcotic substances. The
company advised against consumption of any narcotic substance while taking Lobanza as it
was lethal. Mr. Steve Rovers, a friend of Mr. Snark, designed a machine for faster production
of medicines. After doing a viable research of the LPT machine, Mr. Snark purchased it from
Mr. Rovers on 4th June, 2017. Since the machine proved to be a boon to the company, on 14 th
August, 2017, HPC Ltd. entered into an agreement with Mr. Rovers to purchase 3 more LPT
machines. Although Mr. Rovers ensured the delivery in 5 days but was received by Mr. Snark
after 9 days to which he didn’t object and made the complete payment of $30 million. Frank
Thunderwood, one of the rivals of Mr. Rovers published an article in a journal about the
infirmities of the machine hampering the goodwill of LPT. Back in 2015, Prof. Aldus
Humbledore wrote in his research paper about the side effects of Lobanza Capsule to people
prone to various allergies. Mr. Pablo Escocar, a Janitor in Govt School situated in Riverrunand
was prone to drugs and smoking. Inspired by an advertisement, he bought the Lobanza
medicine from a chemist but couldn't resist smoking and as a consequence died after 8 days of
consumption. LPT machines had some defects which Mr. Rovers overlooked and this
consequently led to the malfunctioning of all the machines on 22 nd October, 2017. Mr. Snark
aggrieved by the loss to his production accused Mr. Rovers of fraud and sued him for breach
of contract availing the doctrine of restitution and praying for a compensation of $100million.
On discovering Mr. Pablo's death, he approached Ms. Amy Santiago, wife of the deceased to
join the suit against Mr. Rovers, offering her a part of the compensation.

Through Article 134(A), the suit has been transferred to the Supreme Court of Asnard.

WRI TTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER S

 THE PETITIONERS VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, THE
FOLLOWING QUERIES:

I.

WHETHER THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF DILLI

PRADESH HAS THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO ENACT THE
IMPUGNED ORDER?

II.

WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS?

- W RI TTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS- Page x of xi

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF DILLI

PRADESH HAS THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO ENACT THE
IMPUGNED ORDER?

It is submitted that the Central Government (through the Lieutenant Governor) passed the
Prohibition Order in July, 2016 putting an embargo on sale, consumption, distribution and
marketing of liquor in the State of Dilli Pradesh. However, the State of Dilli Pradesh
contends that the Lt. Governor had no legislative competence to enact such a law, and
therefore this Prohibition Order needs to be struck down by this Court. This is because, the
State of Dilli Pradesh is competent to enact the law with respect to Entry 8 of List II, and
that this law is a colourable legislatio and the Lieutenant Governor is bound by aid and
advice of council of ministers. In Arguendo, that the Lt. Governor has acted beyond his
competence under the law.

II. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS?

It is submitted that a law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by
courts on two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any
of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution or of any other
constitutional provision. It is submitted that the fundamental rights of the petitioner, King
Bird Liquor Private Limited, have been violated by the imposition of the Prohibition Order
passed by the Central Government. This is because Article 14 has been violated, Article 19
has been violated; Article 21 of the People will be violated; the law imposing such
prohibition is passed by an incompetent authority; the medicinal and toilet preparations
cannot be prohibited; and that the Human Rights of the citizens are violated.

- W RI TTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

 -PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 1 of 19

PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

)
III. WHETHER MR. ROVERS IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE AMY SANTIAGO FOR THE
DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND HER CONSEQUENT LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD?
It is submitted that Mr. Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago as for the death of her
husband and her consequent loss of livelihood, her husband being the sole bread earner of the
family as:
[A] She was an identifiable stranger to Mr. Rovers.
[B] Her right to livelihood is violated after her husband’s death.

[A] THAT AMY SANTIAGO WAS AN IDENTIFIABLE STRANGER TO MR. ROVERS.

According to Order 1, rule 1 of CPC, all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where-
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of
acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the
alternative; and(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact
would arise.
Since, there has been a series of transaction in the concerned case and Amy Santiago has a right to
relief through the same, hence she is eligible to join the suit with Mr.Snark against Mr.Rovers.
Also, as stated in Section 73 of the ICA, 18721, a plaintiff can recover damages without himself
suffering any loss, where it has been within the contemplation of the contracting parties that
breach by one was likely to cause loss to an “identified or identifiable stranger” to the contract,
rather than to the other contracting party,2 but not where it has been intended that the third party
should have a direct cause of action against the defendant to the exclusion of any substantial
claim by the employer. As stated in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. V Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd,"
a plaintiff may recover substantial damages even though he does not personally bear the cost of
correcting the defects, or personally suffer the diminution in value; provided this was intended or
was within the contemplation of the parties; and of such an intention or contemplation is shown, it
is immaterial that the true prayer or sufferer is stranger to the original cont.”.3
Hence it can be established that Amy Santiago was an identifiable stranger to Mr. Rovers as her
husband, Mr.Escocar had consumed Lobanza medicine manufactured from the LPT Machine
which were indeed defective and a reason for his death.

1
Pollock &Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Vol. II, Pg. 1494
2
Panatown Ltd. V Alfred McAlpineContn Ltd. [2000] 4 All ER 97 (HL)
3
[1994] 1 AC 85
[B] THAT HER RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD WAS VIOLATED AFTER HER HUSBAND’S
DEATH.
Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution gives the Right to life and liberty which also includes the right
to livelihood. And in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4, the Supreme Court reiterated
with the approval the above observations and held that the “right to life” included the
right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime
conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture,
heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to
sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.
In M.C. Mehta v Union of India5, the court has stated that the purport to include private
corporations. In art. 12 and have the matter decided within the original jurisdiction of art. 32 is to
subject the activities of such private corporations, “to the limitation of fundamental rights” and
“to inject respect for human rights and social consigns in our corporate structure” thereby to
“advance human rights jurisprudence”.
In Ashok v Union of India6 it is stated that right to life enshrined in art. 21 means right to have
something more than survival not mere existence or animal existence. It includes all those aspects
of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.

The deceased Mr.Escocar was the only earning member in the family and his death has left his
family to miserable conditions. His wife was pregnant at this time and she had to suffer from a
mental trauma. The couple was expecting their second child and had been living in a separate
house with their 8 year old daughter due to some dissensions with their parents and in-laws. So at
the time of his death when Ms. Amy Santiago, wife of Mr.Escocar requested for monetary help,
she was plaintively denied. Due to all this she was mentally traumatized and her livelihood was
curtailed. For living a healthy life and nurturing her children she needs the basic necessities which
she has been deprived of because of her husband’s death which was a result of Mr. Rover’s
negligence.
As is known to us by the facts that few illnesses were reported amongst a few people, this points
to the fact that had his machines been in their proper order her husband would not have died and
this situation would never have arose.

4
1980 AIR 1579
5
1988 AIR 1115
6
1997 AIR 2298
IV. WHETHER MR. STEVE ROVERS, BEING THE SUPPLIER AND SERVICE PROVIDER
OF LPT MACHINES, IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE MR. TONY SNARK FOR BREACH OF
CONT.?

It is submitted that Mr. Rovers is liable to compensate Mr.Snark for the loss of profit and
goodwill he incurred as:
[A] Mr. Rovers had committed a fraud
[B]Mr. Rovers had a duty to ensure that the machines were completely repaired
[C]Mr.Snark has the right to restitution

[A] THAT MR. ROVERS HAD COMITTED FRAUD BY NOT DISCLOSING THE
DEFECTS IN HIS LPT MACHINES AND IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE MR. SNARK.

Under section 17 of the Indian Cont. Act, 1872 fraud is defined as “Fraud means and includes any
of the following acts committed by a party to a cont., with intention to deceive another party
threto, or to induce him to enter into cont.”, and by an “active concealment” of the fact and
breaching his duty to disclose about the defects in the machines, Mr. Rovers fraudulently induced
Mr.Snak to conclude the cont..
Lord Browne Wilkinson gave the following guidance in assessing damages for fraudulent
misrepresentation in Smith New Court Securities Ltd. V Scrimgeour Vickers7:
1. The defendant is bound to make reparation for all the damage directly flowing from the
transaction;
2. Although such damage need not have been foreseeable, it must have been directly caused by
the transaction;
3. In assessing such damage, the plaintiff is entitled to recover by way of damages the full price
paid by him, but he must give credit for any benefits which he has received as a result of the
transaction;
4. As a general rule, the benefits received by him include the market value of the property
acquired as at the date of acquisition; but such general rule is not to be inflexibly applied where to
do so would prevent him obtaining full compensation for the wrong suffered;
5. Although the circumstances in which the general rule should not apply cannot be
comprehensively stated, it will normally not apply where either (a) the misrepresentation has
continued to operate after the date of the acquisition of the asset so as to induce the plaintiff to
retain the asset or (b) the circumstances of the case are such that the plaintiff is, by reason of the
fraud, locked into the property.
6. In addition, the plaintiff is entitled to recover consequential losses caused by the transaction;
7. The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss once he has discovered the
fraud.
7
[1996] 4 All ER 769 (HL)
At the time of cont.Mr. Rovers said that he would ensure the delivery of the machines in five
days, one the machines are carefully assembled and repaired,8 but even then he did not
accomplish it due to which the machines malfunctioned causing loss to Mr.Snark. Hence, he is
liable to return the amount he acquired from Mr.Snark and compensate him for the loss in his
profits and his goodwill.

[B] THAT MR. ROVERS DID NOT ENSURE THAT THE REPAIRS WERE PROPERLY
MADE.
Clause (1) section 16 of Sales of Goods Act,1930 states that where 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 judgement, and the goods are of a
description which is in the course of the seller’s business to supply, there is an implied condition
that the goods shall be reasonably fit for this purpose. Provided that in the case of a cont. for the
sale of a specified good under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its
fitness for any particular purpose.
An exception to the rule of 'caveat emptor' is the implied condition of fitness for a particular
purpose and the merchantability of the product. When a man sells an art., he thereby warrants that
it is merchantable i.e., it is fit for some purpose and if he sells it for some particular purpose, he
thereby warrants it for that purpose.9
Thus, it was Mr. Rover’s duty to ensure the quality of the machines before delivering them to
Mr.Snark.

[C] THAT MR. SNARK HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES FOR THE
LOSSES INCURRED TO HIM
Restitution is not merely available for the purpose of restoring persons under disability to the
position they would they would have enjoyed had they not entered into the cont. which is
impugned. It is also a general remedy available for restoration of the status quo antein all that
wide range of situation in which the law for one reason or another deems it proper to free a party
from the consequences of his cont.
The remedy of restitutiois also sought to liberate a party to a case from a judicial decree affecting
his rights which has been entered in consequence of such vitiating circumstances as fraud or
mistake. Such Relief is granted on grounds similar to those on which restitutiois granted in cases
of cont..10
Section 73 of the Indian Cont. Act, 87211 states that if the seller has delivered defective goods, and
they have neither been rejected, nor can be rejected, the buyer is entitled to the actual value of the

8
Moot Proposition, Pg. 3, Para 6, 3rd& 4th line
9
Eternit Everest Ltd. v Abraham, AIR 2003 Ker 273
10
Phipps v. Bracegyrdle (1988) 35 N.L.R. 302 at 304
11
Pollock &Mulla, Vol. 2 , Pg. 1588
goods received and the value that they would have had if they had been in accordance with the
cont.; the buyer is entitled to recover the loss in respect of the defect, and not the fall in market,
the difference between the cont. and the market price is irrelevant.
Therefore Mr.Snark is entitled to reimburse the entire amount of the four machines that
malfunctioned i.e., $40 million.
Also, it is the fundamental principle of damages for breach of cont. that these are awarded to
place the injured party in the same position in which he would have been, had he not sustained the
injury of which he complains.12 Hence, the damages must be commensurate with the injuries
sustained.
Thus, Mr. Rovers is also liable to compensate for the loss of profits, interruption in his daily
production, plus the loss of goodwill because a few illnesses were reported and Mr.Escocar, a
consumer of the said capsule died after consuming it, which adds up to $100 million.

-W RITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-

12
BR Herman &Mohatta v Asiatic Stream Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Sind 146
 -PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page xi of xi

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN
AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

I. HOLD THAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF DILLI PRADESH DID NOT

HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE TO ENACT THE IMPUGNED ORDER

II. HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER PART-
III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS.

III. DECLARE THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO DRINK ALCOHOL.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE

INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED.

Sd /-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

-W RITTEN SUBMISSION S ON BEHALF OF THE P ETITIONERS-