BEFORE THE HON'ABLE DELHI HIGH COURT,

NEW DELHI

SUIT NO.

In the matter of

AGENT........................................................................................................................................Appellant

v.

TANSUKH BHAI…...................................................................................................................Respondent

Under Order 8 Rule 1 of code of civil

procedure

Council on the behalf of respondent

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Govind Yadav Sir ETI PACHOURI

(Asst. Prof) BA LLB III SEM.

SSLG, JNU
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviation ………………………………………………………………….3

Index of authorities…………………………………………………………………...4

Statement of jurisdiction………………………………………………………………5

Statement of facts …………………………………………………………………….6

Issue of consideration…………………………………………………………………7

Arguments advanced…………………………………………………………………..8

Prayer …………………………………………………………………………………11

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Words

Sec. Section

A.I.R. All India Report

HC High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

v. Versus

i.e. that is
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

 Indian Contract Act,1872

 The Code Of Civil Procedure , 1908

BOOKS REFFERED

 R.K. Bangia, Indian Contract Act

 Avtar singh, Contract and specific relief Axt, 12th Ed.
 1, Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, the Code of Civil Procedure, 19th Ed.

Cases

 Smith V. Elrod 24 So. 994

 Allison V. Abendroth 15 N. E. 715
 Crook et al. V. Forest, Ala 1897 22 So, 540
 John Alexander et al V. Sherwood Co. 77 S. E. 1027
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi under
following Jurisdiction.

 Order 8 rule 1 of cpc 1908

It provides a time limit of maximum of 120 days for filling written statements after the service
of summons is complete.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Tansukh Bhai, the defendant, in writing authorized the real estate firm of M/S Gupta &Sons, plaintiffs,
to sell a certain tract of real estate for him at a stated price and on certain terms also stated. The
plaintiffs, pursuant to such written authority, entered into a written contract with Chaudhary Real
Estate Pvt Ltd for the sale of defendant's said real estate. Plaintiff executed said contract of sale as
agents for the defendant, referring to themselves as agents in the body of the contract and signing
themselves as agents.

The sale thus contracted for, however, was so different in character of price and terms and conditions
from the sale the defendant had authorized plaintiffs to make, that he refused to close the deal and
refused longer to recognize the plaintiffs as agents and in fact discharged them by letter expressly
revoking the agency. Later the defendant and Chaudhary Real Estate Pvt Ltd got together and closed
the deal and carried out the contract on the terms and conditions as stated therein.

Plaintiff demanded a commission from defendant which was refused on the ground that plaintiffs acted
wholly outside their authority in entering into such a contract of sale, that he, defendant, had refused to
recognize their action in making such a contract, had in fact discharged them. and was not liable to the
firm anything he did subsequently, being free to contract and transact for himself in the sale of his land.
 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION.

ISSUE 1:- Should plaintiffs recover or not and why?

ISSUE 2:-     Whether agent is authorized to ask commission or not?

ISSUE 3:-    Whether agency can be revoked by principal at any time or not?
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE1:- Should plaintiff recover or not and why?

No, the plaintiff should not recover the damages because:-
According to Section 211 of Indian Contract Act 1872,
Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business.—An agent is bound to conduct the business
of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or in the absence of any such
directions according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the place where
the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must
make it good to his principal, and if any profit accrues, he must account for it.

Illustration:-
A, an agent engaged in carrying on for B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to
time, at interest, the moneys which may be in hand, on its to make such investments. A must make
good to B the interest usually obtained by such investments. (a) A, an agent engaged in carrying on for
B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to time, at interest, the moneys which may
be in hand, on its to make such investments. A must make good to B the interest usually obtained by
such investments.
But according to the facts and circumstances of our case,

The sale thus contracted for, however, was so different in character of price and terms and conditions from the sale
the defendant had authorized plaintiffs to make, that he refused to close the deal and refused longer to recognize the
plaintiffs as agents and in fact discharged them by letter expressly revoking the agency.

And According to the Section 75 of the Indian Contract Act 1872,

person who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled to compensation for any damage which he has
sustained through the non-fulfilment of the contract.
And the defendant has rightfully rescind a contract because the plaintiff does not act according to the
conditions.

According to Section 206 of Indian Contract Act,

Reasonable notice must be given of such revocation or renunciation, otherwise the damage thereby
resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case may be, must be made good to the one by the other.
And in our case defendant discharged the plaintiff by revoking his agency through letter. So, there is no
ground for claiming compensation by plaintiff.

CASES REFFERED:
 Smith V. Elrod 24 So. 994
 Allison V. Abendroth 15 N. E. 715
ISSUE 2:- Whether agent is authorized to ask commission or not?

.No, the agent is not authorized to ask commission because,

According to Section 211 of Indian Contract Act 1872,
Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business.—An agent is bound to conduct the business
of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or in the absence of any such
directions according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the place where
the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must
make it good to his principal, and if any profit accrues, he must account for it.

Illustration:-
A, an agent engaged in carrying on for B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to
time, at interest, the moneys which may be in hand, on its to make such investments. A must make
good to B the interest usually obtained by such investments. (a) A, an agent engaged in carrying on for
B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to time, at interest, the moneys which may
be in hand, on its to make such investments. A must make good to B the interest usually obtained by
such investments.
But according to the facts and circumstances of our case,
The sale thus contracted for, however, was so different in character of price and terms and conditions from the sale
the defendant had authorized plaintiffs to make, that he refused to close the deal and refused longer to recognize the
plaintiffs as agents and in fact discharged them by letter expressly revoking the agency.

According to Section 6 (1) of Indian Contract Act 1872,

 A proposal is revoked—"
by the communication of notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party;
And in our case the defendant already revoked the agency by letter and discharged the plaintiff from their
agency which shows that the agency is revoked by the defendant and,
The agent is not authorized to ask commission.
Because of the reasonable notice of the revocation according to the section 206 of Indian Contract Act,
Reasonable notice must be given of such revocation or renunciation, otherwise the damage thereby
resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case may be, must be made good to the one by the other.
And in our case defendant discharged the plaintiff by revoking his agency through letter. So, there is no
ground for claiming compensation by plaintiff.

CASE LAW:-
Crook et al. V. Forest, Ala 1897 22 So, 540. –
It was held in the opinion that a land owner by employing an agent cannot recover for a
commission if he notifies his agent before the sale is completed, Further an agent cannot recover for a
commission.
 ISSUE 3: Whether agency can be revoked by principal at any time or not?

Yes agency can by be revoked by the principal at any time,

According to the section 3 of Indian Contract Act,
Communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals.—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, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to
communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it.

CASE LAW:-
John Alexander et al V. Sherwood Co. 77 S. E. 1027
This principle shows that the defendant may discharge the broker at anytime since the
broker is not coupled with an interest.

According to Section 6 (1) of Indian Contract Act 1872,

 A proposal is revoked—"
by the communication of notice of revocation by the proposer to the other party;
 According to Section 206 of Indian Contract Act,
Reasonable notice must be given of such revocation or renunciation, otherwise the damage thereby
resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case may be, must be made good to the one by the other.
And in our case defendant discharged the plaintiff by revoking his agency through letter. So, there is no
ground for claiming compensation by plaintiff and,

According to the Section 207 of Indian Contract Act,

Revocation or renunciation may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of that principal or
agent respectively.
Which shows that agency can be revoked at any time.
And In our case,
the defendant had authorized plaintiffs to make, that he refused to close the deal and refused longer to recognize the
plaintiffs as agents and in fact discharged them by letter expressly revoking the agency.
PRAYER

In the light of the issue raised and the authority cited and arguments advanced, the counsel on
behalf of the defendant request the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to adjourn and declare that:

1. Plaintiff is not liable to recover

2. Agent is not allowed to ask for commission
3. And agency can be revoked by the principle at any time.

And / Or

Any other order which deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity & Good Conscience.

Counsel for Respondent

Eti Pachouri