THE DISTRICT COURT AT DWARKA

CASE NO. 1567 OF 2016

Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh ...Plaintiff

Versus.

Cockroch (P) Ltd. ...Defendant

Name: Riddhi Furia

Roll No: 72
Course: B.L.S LL. B (5yrs course) Sem-X
Subject: Moot Court Practical Training - IV
College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Synopsis 1-3
2. Plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff 4-9

3. Vakalatnama 10
 THE DISTRICT COURT AT DWARKA
CASE NO. 1567 OF 2016

Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh ...Plaintiff

Versus.

Cockroch (P) Ltd. ...Defendant

SYNOPSIS

Sr. Date Particulars

No.
1. Cockroch (P) Ltd a Delhi based Pharmaceutical Company
manufactured a Multi-Vitamin Capsule “Maggots -M”. The
company made an announcement publicly that
consumption of one capsule a day can provide an immense
amount of energy to the body and thus helps to combat
tiredness. The price fixed by the company Rs. 50/- per
capsule.
2. 13-12-2013 The company published an advertisement in all the reputed
newspapers about the benefits of the “Maggots-M” along
with it that these capsules were not evaluated by FSSAI
(Food Safety and Standard Authority of India). Also, the
advertisement declared that these capsules won’t be
helping incurring in specific disease and all the disputes
arising will be dealt with the jurisdiction Courts of
Dwarka, Delhi.
3. 15-06-2014 The company published a further advertisement that it
would pay Rs. 50,000/- who got sick after using these
capsules or who contracts with increasing fatigue,

1
 weakness etc. caused by taking one capsule a day of multi-
vitamins Maggots-M.
4. 15-06-2014 Mr. Kharak Singh aged 15 years suffered from severe
malnutrition, chronic fatigue syndrome and vitamin
deficiency which led to muscle weakness in the entire body
system. Doctor advised him to start vitamin intakes.
Kharak saw the advertisement of Maggots-M and he
decided to consume those tablets as per direction given.
Kharak Singh daily consumed those capsules for the period
of 10 months but soon he realized that his body is
dependent on those capsules and stopping the intake of the
capsules it results in frequent stomach upset, severe
allergic reactions, difficulty in breathing, tightness in the
chest, swelling of the mouth, face, lips or tongue, feeling
fatigue and weakness of the entire body.
5. January, Company raised the prices of the capsules by Rs.75/- as it
2016 found enormous success and rise in demand
6. Mr. Kharak Singh having being believed that his body
cannot smoothly work without consuming these capsules
felt cheated on himself by the company as his body
developed addiction for such capsules.
7. Mr. Kharak Singh’s advocate sent a notice regarding his
claim of rs 50,000 and other damages to the company.
The company’s officer replied with an anonymous letter
that company has complete confidence in the capsules
efficiency if it is used properly, but “to protect company
from all fraudulent claims” they would need him to
company’s office to use it and checked by the secretary.
8. Kharak Singh decided to file this case in the court and
hence this suit.

2
Authorities relied upon by the Plaintiff:

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3. Contract & Specific Relief

Judgements relied upon by the Plaintiff:

1. Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt 1913 40 ALJ 489

2. Har Bhajan Lal vs Har Charan AIR 1925 All 539

3. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Balls Company [1892]

EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256 (CA)

3
 THE DISTRICT COURT AT DWARKA

CASE NO. 1567 OF 2016

Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh ...Plaintiff

Versus.

Cockroch (P) Ltd. ...Defendant

PLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: -

1. That a valid contract exists between the plaintiff, Mr. Singh, and the
defendant, Cockroch Ltd. The contract completes all the essentials required
to form a valid contract. It had an offer, which was general in nature and was
accepted by Mr. Kharak Singh by conduct. In the case of general offers the
communication of acceptance is not required. This offer and acceptance was
backed by a lawful consideration, which, as against the plaintiff was getting
the medicines by Defendant, and as against the defendant was them being
the recipient of the billing amount.

2. That a general offer is the advertisement put up by defendant, to the world

at large. The acceptance was given by the plaintiff after seeing the
advertisement by the company on July 15 through an act of performance by
fulfilling all the conditions laid down in the advertisement and the printed
instructions. His purchasing of the medicine was itself the fulfilment of the
contract. Thus, it fulfils the essentials of a contract i.e. offer and acceptance.

3. That there was an intention to create legal relations by both the parties. It
was widely held by LORD ATKIN LJ that business matters are created with
an intention to contract. The advertisement was in no way merely a puff. The

4
 promise of rewarding Rs. 50,000 was in itself justified in defining whether
there were intention to create legal relations.

4. That the plaintiff acted upon the advertisement published by the defendant
and paid the required amount of money to purchase the capsules of Maggot -
M. Here, the act of paying money becomes a consideration for the defendant
and the act of receiving the Nutrition Supplements becomes a consideration
for the plaintiff.

5. That both the parties in this particular were well within the capacity to
contract. Contracts with minors are held to be void on the grounds of
incompetency unless the minor in the said contract is a beneficia ry. The
plaintiff, Mr. Kharak Singh, who was 15 years of age at the time when he
purchased the bottles of Maggot-M was a beneficiary. Therefore, there was
a valid contract formed between the two parties inspite of the former being
a minor.

6. Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 states that “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.

7. An advertisement 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. In this
case through the medium of advertisement, HEALTHY INDIA
communicated the terms of the offer and made the conditions of the offer
clear.

8. That unilateral contracts arising out of offers made to the general public,
by means of an advertisement here, is an offer to every person who is
willing to accept the terms and conditions of it. Acceptance of the offer is
communicated by the consumer’s actions, thus resulting in a legally
enforceable and binding contract. An advertised guarantee (or promi se) is
a distinct communication to any person and is to be understood in its
plain meaning so that the public understands it without any difficulty. It
indicates the intention of the one making the advertisement to make an

5
 offer. Any person from the public is free to accept the offer subjected to
its terms and conditions. Thus any person who consequently accepts the
offer provides consideration has completed the requisite element to create
a legally enforceable contract.

9. In the case of Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt, “the 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’?”

10. Thus, in this case the advertisement 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
advertisement was a general offer made to the whole world.

11. Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 states “Performance of the
conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a
reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance
of the proposal”

12. Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 states that “communication of
acceptance is necessary and if the promisee fails to communicate the
acceptance then there is no contract. Merely performing the act constitutes
acceptance; further communication is not necessary.”

13. In the case of Har Bhajan Lal vs Har Charan, “section 8 was applied to a
situation where the terms of a general offer were substantially complied
with. A young boy ran away from his father’s home. The father eventually
issued a pamphlet offering a reward of Rs.500. The plaintiff found the
boy’s father that he had found his son. It was held that the handbill was an
offer open to the whole world and capable of acceptance by any person
who fulfilled the condition.”

6
14. That the plaintiff fulfilled the conditions that were mentioned in the
advertisement. He consumed one dose daily which fulfills the criteria of
acceptance as per section 8 of ICA 1872. The offer was made to the whole
world and capable of acceptance by any person who fulfilled the cond ition.'

15. That the plaintiff acted upon the advertisement and accepted the offer, put
himself to inconvenience at the request of the defendants. This alone was
sufficient to constitute consideration. In addition to that the money spent by
the plaintiff which is adding to the sales of defendant is a form of
consideration as well.

16. That according to the advertisement displayed by the defendant, they had
promised that they would be giving any person who has fulfilled the terms
of the contract a sum of Rs. 50,000. BOWEN LJ had brilliantly expatiated in
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case that an offer made to the world at
large, becomes liable to anyone who, before it is retracted, performs the
conditions, and although the offer is made to the world, the c ontract is made
with the limited portion of the public who come forward and perform the
condition on the faith of the advertisement.

17. According to section 2(d) consideration is “When, at the desire of promisor,

the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does
or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstains from doing,
something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration”

18. Thus when it is confirmed of the contract that it is a valid one, we can see
to it that the unpaid consideration of Rs 50,000 amounts to a breach of
contract. The plaintiff is entitled to those 50,000 on account of the losses
he suffered.

19. It also must be brought to light that the consumption of the multi-vitamin
MAGGOT-M capsule was also of an addictive nature. And fully knowing
the consequence of its addictive capabilities, the company had raised its
price by 50% to Rs. 75. Such an increase in price can only be brought to
speculation as such practises are rarely seen anywhere else in the world. It
can also be speculated that the company already knew about the capsule’s
addictive nature and exploited it since people would then already be
addicted to the powder and would have no choice but to buy the product.

7
20. That the contract was not till perpetuity because whether a contract is
perpetual or not totally depends upon the conditions contained in the
contract. Contracts wherein the duration is not specified or is indefinite are
those wherein the life of a contract cannot be calculated. Therefore, the
contract was not till perpetuity for the Plaintiff and he could withdraw from
the contract on the completion of it. The plaintiff stopped eating the
medicine and he contracted many problems as a result. Thus, the side
effects of the medicines prevail not only while eating it but also by not
eating it.

21. That this is a clear case of a breach of contract under Section 37 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 as a valid contract exists between the plaintiff, Mr. Singh,
and the defendant, Cockroch Ltd. The contract completes all the essentials
required to form a valid contract.

22. Hence, the plaintiff Mr. Kharak Singh has the right to sue the company for
breach of contract by the company as they were legally bound to fulfill
their promises as soon as the acceptance to their offer was completed.

PRAYER

In light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities. We humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court that it may be
pleased:

a) That the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand
as damages for the breach of contract.

b) That the defendant must be ordered to evaluate the said capsules under
FDA or FSSAI.

c) And awarding the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

8
 Or pass any other order or make directions as the Hon’ble Court may deem
fit to meet the interest of justice, equity and good conscience in the instant
case.

Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh, age 17, Indian Inhabitant
residing address Delhi, do hereby state that whatever is stat ed in foregoing
Para Nos.1 to 22 of the Affidavit in Reply is true to my own knowledge and
belief.

Solemnly declared at Dwarka, Delhi )

Dated day of February, 2016 )

Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff

9
 THE DISTRICT COURT AT DWARKA

CASE NO. 1567 OF 2016

Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh ...Plaintiff

Versus.

Cockroch (P) Ltd. ...Defendant

To,
Officer,
Dwarka District Court

VAKALATNAMA

I, Mr. Kharak Singh s/o Mr. Rakesh Singh, Plaintiff abovenamed do appoint Ms.
Riddhi Furia, Advocate to act, appear and plead on my behalf in the above Plaint.

In witness whereof, I have set and subscribed my hands to this writing at Delhi.

Dated this day of February, 2016

Accepted

Ms. Riddhi Furia Plaintiff

Advocate for Plaintiff
Roll No. 72
Course: B.L.S. LL. B (5yrs course) Sem X
Subject: Moot Court Practical Training - IV
College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi Mumbai

10
 DOCKET

THE DISTRICT COURT AT

DWARKA

CASE NO. 1567 OF 2016

Mr. Kharak Singh

...Plaintiff

Versus.

Cockroch (P) Ltd.

...Defendant

PLAINT ON BEHALF OF
THE PLAINTIFF

Dated day of February, 2016

RIDDHI FURIA

Advocate for Plaintiff

Roll No. 72
Course: B.L.S. LL. B
(5yrs course) Sem X
Subject: Moot Court
Practical Training - IV
College: Dr. D.Y. Patil
College of Law, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai.