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

1|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

1) Louisa Carlill vs The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

2) Bharti Airtel Ltd v Union of India, (2015) 12 SCC
3) S.M. Gopal Chetty v Raman, AIR 1998
4) Tarsem Singh v Suk minder Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 471: AIR 1998 SC 1400
5) T.N. Tea Plantation Corn Ltd v Srinivasa Timbers, AIR 1999
6) Asudamal Laxmandas Sindhi v Kisanrao Wamanrao Dharmale, (2004) 2 Bom CR
361
7) Mehta Alloy Steel Works v Mehta Finance & Leasing Co Ltd, 1987
8) K. Basavarajappa v Tax Recovery Comr. (1996) 11 SCC 632
9) R. Ranga raj v Legal Representatives 2000 AIHC 2206
10) Rhandir Singh Chandolk v Vipin Bansal, (2006) 135 DLT 56.
11) A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivas Raghava Charar 36 Ind Cas 921 (1916) 31
MLJ 575
12) Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, 1913 40 ALJ 489
13) Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd, (1923) 2 KB 261 (CA).
14) Dalrymple v Darlymple, (1811) 161 ER 665
15) Dresser Rand S.A. v. Binbal Agra Chemical Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 751: AIR 2006 SC
871
16) CWT v Abdul Hussain Mulla Muhammad Ali, (1988) 3 SCC 562

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

KEYWORDS ABBREVIATIONS
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporter
LJ Law Journal
CR Civil Reporter
AIHC All India High Court Cases
DLT Delhi Law Times
KB Kings Bench
CA Court Appeals
ER England Reports
QB Queen’s Bench
SC Supreme Court
ALJ Allahabad Law Journal
V Versus

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS:
1. AVATAR SINGH: CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF
2. M.P. JAIN: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
3. R.K. BANGIA: INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
4. DR. RAJNI DHINGRA: LAW OF CONTRACT

STATUTES:
1. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
2. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

WEBSITES:
1. www.ssconline.com
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.casemine.com

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4|Page
 1. A Lucknow based company Gizzy (P) Ltd made a multivitamin capsule called
maggots-mand fixed a price of each capsule at Rs. 50 claiming such capsules is purely
for overall health, wellbeing and vitality of men and is unique blend of ginseng
vitamins and minerals. the company announced in public that taking one capsule a
day provides great energy as well as boost immunity. the company further published
in reputed newspaper and other media channels claiming number of benefits as
mentioned above and that the capsules are not evaluated from food and drug
administration called FSSAI.
2. The company further mentioned that disputes regarding the consumption of the
capsules must be jurisdictions court in LUCKNOW, only. And published in
newspaper on JULY 15, 2018 that it would pay Rs 50,000 who got sick after using
these capsules or who contracts with increasing fatigue, weakness etc. caused by
taking one capsule a day of multi-vitamins Maggots-M.
3. Mr. DEEP SINGH, aged 15 years suffered from mal-nutrition and vitamin deficiency
and his doctor recommended him daily intakes of certain vitamins. He saw the
advertisement of Maggots-M on newspaper on JULY 15,2018. He started consuming
one capsule a day as per the instructions mentioned on the pack for nearly 10 months.
4. He felt a lot of bodily changes due to stop the consumption of capsules such as
frequent stomach upset, allergic reactions, swelling on the mouth, face, tongue etc.
Mr. DEEP SINGH than discovered that after resuming the consumption, he got relief
from all types of bodily changes.
5. The company in mean time raised the price of each capsule by 50% to Rs 100 as it
found enormous success and rise in demand. Mr. DEEP 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.
6. Mr. DEEP 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.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent is appearing before this Hon’ble District Court, LUCKNOW on Suo moto
motion this Hon’ble court. The power is inherent u/s 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
which is read as under-

Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:

The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits
of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.

[Explanation I] A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a

civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions
as to religious rites or ceremonies.

[Explanation II] For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.].

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS BINDING ON THE PARTIES OR NOT?

B. WHETHER THERE IS A UNILATERAL CONTRACT OR NOT?
C. WHETHER THERE IS AN INTENTION TO CONTRACT OR NOT?

7|Page
 SUMMARY IN ARGUMENT

A. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS BINDING ON THE PARTIES OR NOT?

That it was pleaded before the court that the parties are bound by the instant contract which is
in question. That a valid contract is always binding on the parties of the contract. The contract
between Mr. Deep Singh and The Gizzy (P) Ltd. Company is binding on them as it is also a
valid contract since it fulfils all the essentials for valid contract.

B. WHETHER THERE IS A UNILATERAL CONTRACT OR NOT

That the advertisement was an offer for the world it was not made to any particular person. In
the point of law, the advertisement was an offer to pay 50000 Rs to the person who will
perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the
offer.1 As the plaintiff believing in the statement made in the advertisement started
consuming those medicine. As the plaintiff consumed that medicine as per prescription
written or shown in the advertisement. “Maggot’s- M” capsule such as diet health supplement
provides energy and fights against tiredness; Strengthens and rejuvenates body organs;
Enhance mental and physical health.

C. WHETHER THERE IS AN INTENTION TO CONTRACT OR NOT?

That in the present suit the offer made by The Gizzy (P) Ltd. Company in the newspaper and
other media channels was not simply a puffing advertisement but the letters of promise in the
published advertisement indicates a defendant’s intention to enter in a contract on the lines
suggested on the letter. It may become a prelude to a contract.

ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE
1
Louisa Carlill vs The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company ((1892) EWCA Civil 1)

8|Page
 A. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS BINDING ON THE PARTIES OR NOT?

That it was pleaded before the court that the parties are bound by the instant contract
which is in question. That a valid contract is always binding on the parties of the
contract. The contract between Mr. Deep Singh and The Gizzy (P) Ltd. Company is
binding on them as it is also a valid contract since it fulfils all the essentials for valid
contract.

That the term "contract" is defined in Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as
follows: "An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. 2 Thus for the formation of a
contract there must be-(1) an agreement, and (2) the agreement should be enforceable by law.

“Agreement” is defined in Section 2(e) 3 as "every promise and every set of promises
forming the consideration for each other". And a promise is defined as an accepted
proposal. Section 2(b) says: "A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise." This
is another way of saying that an agreement is an accepted proposal. The process of
definitions comes down to this: A contract is an agreement; an agreement is a
promise and a promise is an accepted proposal. Thus, every agreement, in its
ultimate analysis, is the result of a proposal from one side and its acceptance by the
other.4
That here the Defendant made an offer for its ‘Maggots-M’ capsules via-
advertisement in the newspaper and other media channels which was accepted by
the Plaintiff by paying the price for the capsules which formed a consideration
(promise)5which became a formal agreement.

WHEN AGREEMENT BECOMES CONTRACT

2
Bharti Airtel Ltd v Union of India, (2015) 12 SCC 1, a licence to provide telecom service is a contract between
the licensee and Government of India, the licensor.
3
Indian Contract Act, 1872
4
An arrangement for sale of goods which imposed no obligations on the part of the purchaser and was not even
signed by him was held to be no agreement. It must have been a mere understanding. There being no mutuality,
the purchaser could not ask for the remedy of specific enforcement under S. 15, Specific Relief Act, 1963; S.M.
Gopal Chetty v Raman, AIR 1998 Mad 169. Every agreement has not to be in writing. It must be bilateral,
Tarsem Singh v Suk minder Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 471: AIR 1998 SC 1400. Writing is necessary only when
prescribed by law, T.N. Tea Plantation Corn Ltd v Srinivasa Timbers, AIR 1999 Mad 111. Conrad Dias v
Joseph Dias, between father and son for term 6) 2 Mah LJ 208: (1995) 3 Bom CR 218, oral agreantenancy.
Asudamal Laxmandas Sindhi v Kisanrao Wamanrao Dharmale, (2004) 2 Bom CR 361,
5
Section 8 of Indian Contract Act 1872: "Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration"

9|Page
An agreement is regarded as a contract when it is enforceable by law.6 In other words, an
agreement that the law will enforce is a contract. The conditions of enforceability are stated
in Section 10.7 According to this section, an agreement is a contract when it is made for some
consideration, between parties who are competent, with their free consent and for a lawful
object.

S. 10.8What agreements are contracts. -All agreements are contracts if they are made
by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and
with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in9[India] and not hereby
expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the
presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.
That the agreement between the Gizzy (P)Ltd. Company and Mr. Deep Singh,
although it was indirect, fulfilled all the elements required to convert an agreement
into a contract as provided under section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As the
Agreement was made by free consent of parties to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object. So, the Contract has a binding effect on the
parties.

B. WHETHER THERE IS A UNILATERAL CONTRACT OR NOT

6
S. 2(h). Mehta Alloy Steel Works v Mehta Finance & Leasing Co Ltd, 1987 Dell, K. Basavarajappa v Tax
Recovery Comr., (1996) 11 SCC 632, R. Ranga raj v Legal Representatives 2000 AIHC 2206. Rhandir Singh
Chandolk v Vipin Bansal, (2006) 135 DLT 56.
7
Indian Contract Act, 1872
8
Ibid.
9
Subs. by S. 3 and Schedule of Act 3 of 1951 for the words "Part A States, and Part C States" which have been
substituted by the A.O. 1950 for the Provinces"

10 | P a g e
 That in the very famous case of Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Pen the court went on
to explain unilateral offer, where an offeror promises something in return for the
offeree to perform an act where the right of communication is waived where the
advertisement in different media platform was an offer to enter into a unilateral contract
the advertisement was specific as to claim reward.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court. That in another case the honorable
court went on to explain that. A Unilateral Contract refers to gratuitous promise where
only party makes a promise without a return promise.10 11
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that. If there is an offer to the world
at large and the offer does not expressly or impliedly notification of performance,
performance of the specified condition in the offer will constitute the acceptance of the
offer and consideration for the promise.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court. That there was a consideration in
this case Gizzy received a benefit i.e., in the sales directly beneficial to them by
advertising the Gizzy Pvt Ltd.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court. That there was a unilateral contract
between the parties as there was an offer acceptance was made through specific
performance was made through full filling the condition the of offer and there was a
consideration made through the sale of that particular thing (medicine)

C. WHETHER THERE IS AN INTENTION TO CONTRACT OR NOT?

10
Calamari& Joseph M. Perillo in the Law of Contract (4th Edition Para 2-10(a) pg. 64-65)
11
A.T. Raghava Chariar vs O.A. Srinivas Raghava Charar 36 Ind Cas 921 (1916) 31 MLJ 575

11 | P a g e
 That there is no specific provision in the Indian Contract Act requiring that an offer
or its acceptance should be made with the intention of creating a legal relationship.
But in English Law it is a settled principle that "to create a contract there must be a
common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations”.12 It was pointed out
in an early case that contracts must not be the sports of an idle hour, mere matters of
pleasantry and badinage, never intended by the parties to have any serious effect
whatsoever".13
The modern position is that an offer may be made to the world at large. But the
contract is not made with all the world. Contract is made only with that person who
comes forward and performs the conditions of the proposal. The principle is thus
stated in Anson: “An offer need not be made to an ascertained person, but no
contract can arise until it has been accepted by an ascertained person."14 An offer of
this kind has already been seen in Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt which was
addressed to the public generally. Another authority is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co. (Smoke Ball case).15
That in the present suit the offer made by The Gizzy (P) Ltd. Company in the
newspaper and other media channels was not simply a puffing advertisement but the
letters of promise in the published advertisement indicates a defendant’s intention
to enter in a contract on the lines suggested on the letter. It may become a prelude
to a contract.
However, where a letter stated that it would be followed by a detailed purchase order
which carried an arbitration clause, it was held that the letter was not a supply order
and the arbitration clause contained in it did not by itself fructify into an arbitration
agreement.16

Supreme Court’s view of requirement of “intention”

12

ATKIN J at p. 293 in Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd, (1923) 2 KB 261 (CA).
13
Dalrymple v Darlymple, (1811) 161 ER 665, per Lord STOWELL.
14
Anson's LAW OF CONTRACT (23rd Edn by A.G. Guest, 1971) 40.
15
(1893) 1 QB 256 (CA).
16
Dresser Rand S.A. v. Binbal Agra Chemical Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 751: AIR 2006 SC 871

12 | P a g e
 The Supreme Court has expressed its reservation about the need of this separate
requirement of intention to contract" under the Contract Act Going by the criticism
which is already there in the West, the court found that it was a necessity of those
systems where consideration was not a requisite of enforceability. Thus, it is still an
open question whether the requirement of "intention to contract" is applicable under
the Indian Contract Act in the way in which it has been developed in England.17
But earlier to this, a limited recognition of the applicability of this principle in India
could be inferred from the decision of the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal v
Sukhdarshan Dayal.18 In an auction sale of plots of land, a loudspeaker was spelling
out the terms, etc., of the sale, one of the statements being that a plot of certain
dimensions would be reserved for a Dharamshala (public inn). Subsequently, that
plot was also sold for private purposes. The purchasers sought to restrain this.
CHANDRACHUD J (afterwards CJ) said: Microphones... have not yet acquired
notoriety as carriers of binding representations. Promises held out over loudspeakers
are often claptraps of politics. In the instant case, the announcement was, if at all, a
puffing up of property put up for sale.
In a subsequent case19 on the subject, the Supreme Court noted the general
proposition that in addition to the existence of an agreement and the presence of
consideration there is also the third contractual element in the form of intention of
the parties to create legal relations, and also noted that this proposition, though
accepted in English Law, has not passed unchallenged. The court then cited the
following passage from Cheshire and Fifoot's LAW OF CONTRACT: 20 "... the
criticism of it made by Prof. Williston demands attention, not only as emanating
from a distinguished American jurist, but as illuminating the whole subject. In his
opinion, the separate element of intention is foreign to the common law, imported
from the Continent by academic influences in the 19th century and useful only in
systems which lack the test of consideration to enable them to determine the
boundaries of contract."

17
CWT v Abdul Hussain Mulla Muhammad Ali, (1988) 3 SCC 562 at p. 569.
18
(1973) 1 SCC 294.
19
CWTv Abdul Hussain Mulla Muhammad Ali, (1988) 3 SCC 562 at p. 569.
20
(10th Edn) 97.

13 | P a g e
 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: 
i. Declare for that the Defendant is liable for specific performance of the contract under
The Specific Relief Act, 1963.
ii. Declare that the Contract was binding on the Parties.
iii. That the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand as damages
for the breach of contract.
iv. And awarding the plaintiff the cost of the suit. 

And Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Plaintiff)

 

14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e