P

BA.LL.B 5 YEARS PROGRAMME

BA.LL.B (3) 2021-2022

MOOT COURT PROBLEM:-02

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF DELHI

IN THE CIVIL SUIT NO. ________ 2021

Mr. AJAY. Plaintiff

V.

MS. KAJAL.. Defendant

MEMORIAL FOR THE PLANTIFF

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL.

Drawn and filed by the Counsel for the Plantiff

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL.NO. TITLE

1. Table of cases

2. List abbreviations

3. Index of authorities

4. Statement of facts

5. Statement of jurisdiction

6. Statement of issues

7. Statement of arguments

8. Arguments advance

9. Prayer

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 TABLE OF CASES

1. A.T. Raghava Chariar V. O.M. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar (1916) 31 MLJ

575 

2.  Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256

3. ChekhaAdinarayana V. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd.  on 16

June, 2005 (2005) ACC 847, 2005 (4) ALD 840, 2005 (5) ALT 50

4. Great American Insurance Co Ltd. V.

MadanlalSonulal (1937) 37 BOMLR 461

5. Har Bhajan Lal V. Har Charan Lal AIR 1925 All

539 

6. Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Datt (1913) 11 All LJ

489 

7. Malraju Lakshmi Venhayyamma V. Venkata

Narsimha Appa Rao (1916) 18 BOMLR 651 

8. State of Bihar V. Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. AIR 1954 Pat 14 

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Adv Advertisement

Co. Company

FSSAI Food Safety and Standard Authority of India

Ltd. Limited

V. Versus

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS:
1. R.K. BANGIA: INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
2. . AVATAR SINGH: CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF
3.SURENDRA SAHAI SRIVASTAVA: LAW OF CONTACT- I AND II

STATUTARY COMPILATIONS:
 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

WEBSITES:-

Sr. No Research Database

1 www.indiankanoon.con

2 www.manupatra.com

3 www.legalserviceindia.com

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms. Kajal (Defendant), a minor, who was renowned film star of sixteen years
of age, wanted a small party house and a swimming pool in her garden. By
misrepresenting that she is a major, she put the task out to tender and accepted
the offer of Mr. Ajay, a building contractor, who agreed to do the work for
Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. Both the parties knew that this was an unrealistically low price contract and
there is no change that construction can be completed in this much amount but
still Mr. Ajay began the construction work.

3. After the completion of party house, Mr. Ajay began construction of the
swimming pool and ran out of money & materials for further const. Kajal told
Ajay that he can continue to work with his own money because she had
arranged a poolside party to which she had invited top film directors from
whom she hoped to win new leading roles and was desperate to have the pool
completed as stipulated. She will return the amount when she secures her next
contract of movie.

4. Mr. Ajay accepted defendant req. and complete the const by spending Rs.
3,00,000/- from his own pocket.

5. The party was a success and Kajal was awarded the starring role in the new
movie and new film was a complete flop. She then found herself unable to pay
the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to Mr. Ajay.

6. Mr. Ajay compelled Kajal to dance for which he will release Kajal from her
debt in the party which he organized in which he invited rich people, relatives,
and friends in order to secure contracts regarding building construction.
Defendant agreed for this but before the party she got sprain in her legs during
the rehearsals. Then she didn’t perform in the party.
6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
7. On the eighteenth birthday of Kajal both the parties to alter the contract that
defendant will repay the amount in EMIs of 10,000/per month. Defendant later
found that the construction of party house and swimming pool was done very
badly; low quality material was used in the construction.

8. She estimated that the construction would not have cost more than 3,50,000,
to Mr. Ajay. Kajal dispose-off the property in Rs.9,00,000 without giving single
penny to Plaintiff because of his foul play in construction. Plaintiff started to put
enormous pressure on Defendant to recover the money. But he couldn’t recover
after waiting for reasonable time, so Mr. Ajay gave notice for repayment within
15 days, but no reply was given by Kajal and hence this suit.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Learned Civil Judge of the District Court of Delhi has the inherent
jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose the present case by virtue of its
pecuniary jurisdiction , where in Delhi the Court of Learned Civil Judge has the
jurisdiction to try suit in which the amount claimed does not exceed a sum of
Rupees 3 lakhs.

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether the 1st and 2nd contract is valid or not?

ISSUE 2: Whether there is a breach of contract under Indian Contact Act 1872
or not??

ISSUE 3: Whether Plantiff can recover money from Defendant?

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1. Whether the 1st and 2nd contract is valid or not?

Petition claimed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the court of law and the
co. is not liable to pay any compensation as the plantiff (Mohin) was having
several diseases before consuming C-caps and when he found out after a week
that the C-caps medicine is not suiting his body then why did he continued the
medicine for 10 months.

ISSUE2. Whether there is a breach of contract under Indian Contact Act

1872 or not?

No, there was no breach of contract by the MAXPLANK (P) Ltd. as according to
the general offer released by the MAXPLANK (P) Ltd. co. they were supposed to
pay Rs 50,000 as reward to anyone with increasing fatigue, weakness or any
disease caused by the intake of multivitamin C-caps capsules and after having one
capsule a day according to the printed direction. The Plantiff Mohin Jain saw this
advertisement on 15th july and he purchased it and consumed it according to the
printed instructions. He consumed those capsules till 10months and then when he
stopped the consumption of such capsules he started facing problems such as
frequent stomach upset; severe allergic reactions; difficulty in breathing; tightness
in the chest etc. so he claimed the reward of Rs 50,000 as a compensation but the
co. ignores as they have promised to pay the reward only if incase a person faces
the above mentioned problems by the “intake” of such capsules and not by
stopping the consumption of them but here the Plantiff faces such problem by
stopping the consumption of such capsule. So clearly, there was no breach of
contract by the MAXPLAK (P) Ltd. According to section 37 of the Indian
Contract Act.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
ISSUE 3. Whether Plantiff can recover money from Defendant?

No, the C-caps which was brought in the market by the co. was not approved by
FSSAI. The ad which they posted about the capsules, it was clearly mentioned
in the ad that these capsules have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug
Administration or the FSSAI.

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. Petition claimed by the petitioner is maintainable in the court of

law or not and will the company is liable to pay the compensation?

Petition claimed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the court of law and the
co. is not liable to pay any compensation as the plantiff (Mohin) was having
several diseases before consuming C-caps and when he found out after a week
that the C-caps medicine is not suiting his body then why did he continued the
medicine for 10 months.

ISSUE 1.1. Whether there was a valid contract between the parties?

It’s very much clear that there was no contract between the parties as Mr.
Mohin Jain, aged 15 years, is a minor. And according to Indian Contract Act,
minor cannot be indulged into a contract and if he/she does then the contract
will be void.

Therefore, there was not a valid contract between the parties.

ISSUE 2. Whether a contract with a minor is valid? 

Section 11 of ICA 1872 as a general rule, declares that a minors are incompetent
to contract .As per Indian law, minor’s agreement stands void, which
means that it has no stand whatsoever in the eyes of the law. So
a contract with  minor stands null and void since either party can not
impose it. And even after the person attains majority, the same
agreement cannot be ratified by him. 

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
RELATED CASES

A.T. Raghava Chariar V. O.M. Srinivasa Raghava

Chariar 1

In this case, it was held “The provision of law which renders minors incompetent
to bind themselves by contract was enacted in their favour and for their protection,
and it would be a strange consequence of this legislation if they are to take nothing
under transfers in consideration of which they have parted with their”. 

GIVEN CASE 

In this case, Mohin Jain, a minor aged 15 years purchased “C-caps” manufactured
by MAXPLANK (P) Ltd after reading an Adv which was published in various
newspapers and other media channels which claimed that if anyone suffers any
disease after consuming the food supplement as per the instructions given then the
co. will be liable to give Rs.50,000. But as per the Indian Law, contract with a
minor is void ,so there is no contract between MAXPLANK (P) Ltd and Mohin
Jain .

RELATED CASES

1. Great American Insurance Co Ltd. V.

MadanlalSonulal 2

2. ChekhaAdinarayana V. Oriental Fire and General Insurance

Co Ltd. 3

1
A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar on 5 April, 1916 36 Ind Cas 921, (1916) 31 MLJ 575
2
Great American Insurance Co Ltd. v. MadanlalSonulal (1937) 37 BOMLR 461 
3
ChekkaAdinarayana And Anr. vs Oriental Fire And General on 16 June, 2005 (2005) ACC 847, 2005 (4) ALD 840,
2005 (5) ALT 50
13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 ISSUE 1.3. Whether an adv is a general offer and whether communication
of acceptance is required in case of a general offer? 

Section 3 of the ICA 1872 says “The communication of proposals, the

acceptance of proposals and the revocation of proposals and acceptances,
respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party
proposing, acceptance or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such
proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it. 

An Adv is an offer to the whole world. General offer is made to the public at
large. This type of offer can be accepted by anyone but again contract with a
minor cannot be accepted. In this case through the medium of Adv, HEALTHY
INDIA communicated the terms of the offer and made the conditions of the offer
clear. 

RELATED CASES

Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Datt 4

In this case, nephew of the defendant absconded from home and no trace of him
was found. The defendant sent his servants to different places in search of the boy
and among them was the plaintiff who was the munim of the firm. After this, the
defendant circulated pamphlets regarding cash prize for finding the lost nephew.
The pamphlet regarding the details of the reward was considered as the offer and
the issue in the case was “is the knowledge of a proposal necessary to claim the
completion of contract”? 

GIVEN CASE

4
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (1913) 11 All LJ 489  

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 In this case the ad regarding the reward of Rs.50,000 and performance of the
instruction mentioned on the pack was published in newspapers and media
channels so it is absolutely clear that this ad was a general offer made to the whole
world. But the plaintiff ( Mohin) cannot claim for Rs. 50,000 from the defendant
MAXPLANK (P) Ltd as firstly, he is a minor and a contract with minor is void.
Secondly, Mohin Jain ( plaintiff) was suffering from malnutrition, chronic fatigue
syndrome and vitamin deficiency before the intake of C- caps.

OTHER CASES 

1. Malraju Lakshmi Venhayyamma V. Venkata Narsimha

Appa Rao 5

2. State of Bihar V. Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical

Works Ltd.6

ISSUE 2 Whether there was a breach of contract by the

MAXPLANK (P) Ltd.?

A breach of contract occurs when a party to a contract fails to fullfill

its obligations, whether partially or wholly, as described in the
contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise
appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract.
Where there is a breach of contract, the resulting damages will have to
be paid by the party breaching the contract to the aggrieved party.
Also, a contract with a minor is a void. THEREFORE, no contract has

5
Malraju Lakshmi Venhayyamma v. Venkata Narsimha Appa Rao (1916) 18 BOMLR 651
6
State of Bihar v. Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. AIR 1954 Pat 14 
15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
been formed between both the parties. Hence, there is no breach of
contract by the MAXPLANK(P)Ltd.

ISSUE 3. Whether the multivitamin called the “C-caps” were approved by

FSSAI?

No, the C-caps which was brought in the market by the co. was not approved by
FSSAI. The adv which they posted about the capsules, it was clearly mentioned
in the adv that these capsules have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug
Administration or the FSSAI.

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF
 PRAYER
In the light of the facts, stated, issues raised and arguments advanced, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the honourable court may be pleaded to
pass a judgement and a decree against the defendant and in favour of the
plaintiff and graciously adjudge and declare:

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF