3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition

Team Code: P7

Vivekananda Law School Moot Court Society

3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition.

Before
The District Court of Senior Civil Judge , Delhi.

R . D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.

(Plaintiff)
V.
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.
(Defendant)

Case concerning with breach of contract and related issues.

Submitted in the Registry of the District Court.

Memorial for the plaintiff.

1 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS.......................................................
ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................

2 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Hon‟ble – honorable
2. i.e. – that is
3. SC – Supreme Court
4. Dtd.- dated
5. CISG- Contracts of the International Sale of Goods
6. ICA-Indian Contract Act 1872
7. SLG-Sale of Goods Act 1930
8. u/s-under section
9. s/d-signed.

3 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

PRECEDENTS:-
1. Mam Trading Co. Ltd. v. Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. 24 BLD (HCD ) 2004
2. Chitranji Lal Ram Partnership firm v. Chandgi Ram Kundan Lal and Co. AIR 1967
del 158
3. Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Comissioners for the port of Calcutta AIR 1971
Cal 357.
4. Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd. v. Trimurthi Plastics 2013 SCC online Kar 6595
5. Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2009 5 SCC
142
6. Oil Natural Gas Ltd. v. Offshore Enterprise Ltd. (2011) 14 SCC 147
7. Karsandas H. Thacker v. Saran Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1981
8. Shanti Devi v. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, AIR 2007 DOC 102 (NCC).
9. Hadley v. Baxendale (1843-60) All ER Rep 461.

BOOKS :-
1. Avtar Singh – Sale of Goods Act
2. Partnership Act & Sale of Goods Act – Dr. S.K. Kapoor
3. R.K Bangia – Business Law
4. Avtar Singh – Contract and Specific Relief
5. Contracts of International Sale of Goods.

STATUTES:-
1. The Indian Contract Act 1872
2. The Sale of Goods Act 1930

WEBSITES:-

1. Indiankanoon.org
2. Legalcrystal.com
3. Scconline.com
4. Lawctopus.com
5. Manupatra.com

4 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the suit filed before this Honourable
Court. The suit concerning “breach of contract and related issues” is filed in the Court of the
Senior Civil Judge in accordance with the Section 6, Section 9 and Section 20 of the Civil
Procedural Code , the Court has the jurisdiction to decide all the matters referred to it for
decision. Both the parties shall accept the Court‟s decision as final and binding and execute in
good faith.

5 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A Company “R D” in the name of R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd operates in ladies

ware . It earned huge profits over the years and eventually decided to expand its
business by introducing a number of varieties in kids wear.
2. In order to achieve the above objective , they approached the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd ., a
large manufacturer of garments in kids wear garments. “R D” entered into a contract
for the purchase of kids wear garments . The contract price was Rs.6,00,000 / and
both the parties agreed upon a payment schedule . R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd agreed
to pay Rs.4,00,000/ partially upon the delivery of kids wear clothes on 1st January
2017 and a full and final payment of Rs.2,00,000 on 1st March 2017 .
3. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd on the
agreed date i.e. 1st January 2017 as per the contract. However , shortly after taking
the delivery of the clothes , R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd looses a profitable contract
with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand for
their kids wear garments. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd , was also suffering from financial
difficulties due to a number of legal actions brought against it.
4. It was realised by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd that R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd would be
unable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000 on 1st March 2017 , Sapatrangi
Pvt. Ltd agreed to accept Rs. 50,000 in full satisfaction of the debt. R.D Parmanandka
Pvt. Ltd duly paid such amount on 1st March 2017.
5. On 3rd March 2017 Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the rest of the clothes to R.D
Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.
6. On delivery it was found that the clothes were of poor quality . On 4th March a notice
was sent to the to Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., to exchange the clothes .the notice was
acknowledged and accepted by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. However , no exchange took
place . On 20th march second notice was sent which was neither acknowledged nor
replied.
7. Hence R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd and claims
Rs. 1,50,000 for breach of contract . Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd contended that it was not
bound to pay the amount claimed in the suit because the clothes were of good
qualities.

6 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if it
was then what was the effect of it on the original contract.
 Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.

 Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach.

 Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000.

7 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1) Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if
it was then what was the effect of it on the original contract:-
R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd had entered into a valid contract to purchase kids wear
garments from Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd for the ascertained price of Rs. 6,00,000. Under
Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 it was a valid agreement to sell. Both had
agreed on a schedule of payment . After sometime , Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd realised that R D
Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd might not able to pay the sum due so Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., agreed
to accept Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.2,00,000 as decided per the original contract. This was
a part remission of the contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd under section 63 of The Indian
Contract Act , 1872 .

2) Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.

According to the paying schedule in the contract R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd were
supposed to pay Rs.4,00,000 on taking the delivery of the clothes on 1st January 2017 and
had to pay the rest of the amount Rs.2,00,000 as full and final settlement on 1st March
2017 but the full delivery of clothes was not received on 1st January , only a part delivery
was received and the rest was received on 3rd March 2017, which is a breach of contract
under Section 47 of The Indian Contract Act 1872.
The quality of the rest of the clothes delivered on 3rd March 2017 was poor and regardless
of the notices sent to the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., out of which one was acknowledged and
accepted and the other was ignored the goods were not exchanged. The supply of poor
quality of clothes is a breach of contract under Section 16(1) of „Sale of Goods Act 1930.
This was a breach of contract under Section 39 of the Indian Contracts 1872.

3) Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach.

8 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

The plaintiff accrued losses on various grounds by the breach of contract by Sapatrangi
Pvt. Ltd., firstly , all the goods were not delivered on the date mutually decided(1st
January 2017) by the parties as per the contract, instead the full delivery was received 2
months later on 3rd March 2017, due to this delay the plaintiff suffered a loss in sale and
business for 3 months . When the remaining clothes were delivered to the plaintiff were
found out to be of poor quality which could not be sold by the plaintiff and they were not
even exchanged by the defendants despite two notices sent to them expressing the
foresaid contention.

4) Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000

The plaintiff suffered loss of sale and business for three months due to the late delivery
of all the goods by the defendant. Besides that , the rest of the goods when provided were
found to be of poor quality and could not be sold which amounted to a loss equal to the
amount paid for the poor quality products as that amount could not be recovered through
sales. All these losses amounted to Rs.1,50,000. Also the poor quality products occupied
unnecessary space as they were not exchanged despite the notices sent.

9 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

1) Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid
and if it was then what was the effect of it on the original contract:-
The plaintiff R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd had entered into an agreement with a
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd for the delivery of kids wear garments under Section 4 of the Sale
of Goods Act 1930. According to the Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 , in
case of transfer of property of goods is to take place at a furniture time or to some
conditions to be fulfilled after , the contract is called an agreement to sell. It becomes
a sale when the time elapses and the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the
property in the goods to be transferred 1.
The defendant was supposed to give the full delivery of the garments on 1st January
2017 and the plaintiff Pvt. Ltd were supposed to pay Rs.4,00,000 in exchange of the
full delivery and the full and final payment of Rs.2,00,000 was to be payed on 1st
March 2017 2. Accordingly R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd payed Rs.4,00,000 on 1st
January though the full payment was recieved .
After sometime when both the parties were facing financial challenges , the defendant
realised that the plaintiff might not be able to pay the final payment due of
Rs.2,00,000 , hence the plaintiff agreed to accept Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.2,00,000
due to be payed by the plaintiff. This a part remission of the contract by the defendant
according to the Section 63 of The Indian Contract Act 1872 3. According to Section
63 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 that every promisee may dispe1nse with or remit ,
wholly or in part , the performance of the promise made to him , may extend the time
of performance or may accept instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit. Here
in the case the promisee on his accord agreed to accept an amount of Rs.50,000
instead of Rs.2,00,000 which he thought he was fit. Hence this was a valid remission
to the contract and no other changes were agreed upon to be made in the

1
Part 2 of section 16 of the Sale Of Goods Act 1930.
2
second point in summary of facts .
3
section 63 of contract act :- promise to dispense with or remit peformance of promise.

10 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

contract by the parties and the rest of the contract was supposed to be performed in
the same way it was decided to be and the defendants were still obliged to pay the
remaining clothes which were supposed to be delivered on 1st January 2017.

2) Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.

According to the facts of the case the plaintiff entered into a contract with the
defendant for the delivery of kids wear clothes for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000 and
a payment schedule was agreed upon according to which a payment of Rs.4,00,000
was to be made by the palintiff on the delivery of goods on 1st January and the whole
2
delivery should have been made on that date. According to the facts of the case it is
mentioned that a payment schedule was agreed upon by the parties and not a schedule
for deliveries , the payments were to be made in parts but nowhere in the contract was
it mentioned that part goods will be delivered. It was clearly mentioned in facts that “
R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/ partially on the delivery of the
kids wear garments on 1st January 2017 and a final payment of Rs.2,00,000/ on 1st
March 2017.
It was never ever mentioned anywhere in the contract that the full and final settlement
was to be paid on recieving the part delivery of the clothes. The defendant was
supposed to deliver the whole on 1st January but a part of it was delivered in 3rd
March which in inconsistent with the contract and is therefore a breach of contract
according to Section 52 of The Indian Contract Act 1872 4. Accoding to this section
52 in a contract when the order in which the reciprocal promises are to be performed
in that order ; and where the order is not expressly fixed by the contract , they shall be
performed in that order , in this case the order was clearly expressed in the form of a
payment schedule the defendant was supposed to deliver the whole before taking the
full and final payment but it did not deliver the whole on 1st January 2017 as required
by the contract but on 3rd March 2017.

According to Section 55 of The Indian Contracts Act5 , when a party to a contract

promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time , fails to do any such thing

4
section 52 of contract act – order of performance of promises .

11 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

at or before the specified time , the contract , so much it has not been performed ,
becomes voidable at the option of the person it was promised to.
Also if the seller delivers only a part of the goods and the goods delivered are in
3
conformity of the contract Articles 46 and 50 of the CISG 6 the buyer still might
avoid the contract if there is a fundamental breach.
Also under article 49(2) of the act the buyer loses the right to delclare the contract
void if the seller has delivered the goods unless he or she does it in respect to late
delivery which is fundamenatl breach and it should be done within reasonable time
after he has been made aware of the delivery.
As to the dispute over the delivery of the low quality goods on 3rd March 2017, the
remaining products which were delivered after the full and final payment of
Rs.50,000 were of poor quality which is again a breach of the contract. According to
Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 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 , there
is an impied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose .
According to te facts of the case the defendant agreed to pay a lesser amount because
he knew that the plaintiff had suffered heavy losses in business and if he knew that
the plaintiff suffered losses in bussiness that implies that the defendant knew what
business the plaintiff was in.
The court shall not entertain the contention of the defendants that the goods were not
of poor quality beacuase if that had been the case , then when a notice to exhange the
poor quality products was sent to the defendant it should have been expressed by them
that the goods were not of poor quality but that was not done but instead the
defendant acknowledged and accepted the notice but no exchange took place and the
second notice was not even replied to.

5
section 55 – effect of failure to perform at the fixed time
6
CISG- Contract for International Sale Of Goods.

12 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

In the case KWALITY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CENTRAL

WAREHOUSING CORPORATION7 in the contract for 32 lakh bamboo mats when
the bamboo mats of poor quality were delivered to the applicant damages were
awarded to the applicant for the breach of contract in pursuance to Section 16 of The
Sale of Goods Act 1930.
3) Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach.

Accoding to the foresaid contract the full delivery of the contract goods was not
recieved by the plaintiff on the date agreed upon. Without any doubt that led to loss of
sale and business , loss of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff party .
In the case Shanti Devi v. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank8 , it was held that when a
promise has to be performed before a certain or on a specific day then it must be
performed before the lapse of that time.
Even when the rest of the goods due to be delivered were delivered on 3rd March 2017
they were found to be of poor quality which could not be sold , traded and performed
business and the consideration for that was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff on
time . Also according to the facts the defendant very well knew that the plaintiff was
suffering heavy losses in business and would be affected greatly by loss of sale and
business that the delivery of poor quality of products would result in.
So the plaintiff accrued losses due to the partial and late delivery of the goods and
also due to the poor quality of the products delivered .

4) Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000

According to the case Karsandas H. Thacker v. Saraan Engg . Co. Ltd9., Damages
are to be awarded as compensation for any loss or damage arsing naturally in the
usual course of things from the breach of contract.
4
Also in the case Hadley v. Baxendale10 certain principles were laid down ,

7
AIR 1965 SCC 1981
8
AIR 2007 DOC 102 (NCC)
9
AIR 1965 SCC 1981
10
All Er Rep 1846.

13 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

In this case plaintiff was an extensive business miller , their mill was stopped by a
breakage of the crankshaft by which the mill worked. The defendants, a firm of
carriers were engaged to carry the shaft to the manufacturers and patent for a new one.
The plaintiff‟s servant told the defebdants that the mill was stopped and the new shaft
must be sent immediately , but due to the neglect of the defendant the delivery was
delayed and the plaintiff did not recieve the new shaft for several days after the after
they would have otherwise done. The action was bought for loss of profits they would
have made in the time delayed.
In this beacause the complete delivery was not recieved on the agreed date , it led to
loss of consignments and sales to the plaintiff which ultimately transforms into loss of
profits even after the delivery of the remaining products they were of poor quality and
they could not be sold at all which again resulted into loss of sales and profits and also
the price paid for the goods which could not have be recovered .
According too the rules laid down t5his case only general damages can be recovered
and not special damages and for a business of garments the loss of profits and sales is
what takes place in usual course if the delivery is on time or the quality and it is not
any special damage. Also the defendant was aware of the conditions of the plaintiff
which were financially canstrained.

So the damages accrued by the plaintiff includes :- loss of sale and profits due to the partial
delayed delivery of the goods for the two months + loss in godwill and reputation + loss for
sale and profits of poor quality + loss of compensation for the clothes which could not be
recovered .

For the breach ofcontract on the part of the defendant under Section 3911 of the Indian
Contract Act 1872, the plaintiff claims damages under Section 73 of the Act12.

Hence the plantiff is entitled to Rs.1,50,000 as damages for the breach of contract by the
defendant.

11
section 39 – breach of contract
12
section 73 – claim for damages

14 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

 3rd Arguendo Moot Court Competition
Team Code: P7

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts stated , issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon‟ble District Court of Senior
Civil Judge , Delhi , that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare.

THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED Rs.1,50,000 AS DAMAGES FOR

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

The court may be pleased to pass any other decree , which the court may deem fit in the light
of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

COUNSELS FOR PLAINTIFF

15 Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff