MITTAL SCHOOL OF BUSINESS:

COURSE CODE: BSL101 COURSE TITLE: Business law

COURSE INSTRUCTOR:Dr Arpit- SECTION: Q2003
Sidhu
DATE OF ALLOTMENT:01-02-2022 DATE OF SUBMISSION:-18-02-2022
STUDENT ROLL-N0: A19 STUDENT- REg-NO-12013017

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

The assignment help me to increase my knowledge by doing work on different

research papers and also taught that it is very difficult get work done from others

DECLARATION:

I declare that this assignment is my individual work ,I have not copied it from any other
student’s work or from any other source accept where due to acknowledgement is made
explicity in the text,nor has any part beeN written for me by any other person

STUDENT’S SIGNATURE:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Every piece of hardwork requires the combined efforts and
talents of many people, an ambitious work of this kind
providing analytical review to the subject would have
remained a concept rather than the finished project,without
co-operations of those who respondent to our request to
contribute, I am very much grateful to DR. Arpit Sidhu Of
department of management. He has enriched my
knowledge and gave me a moral support to do this
assignment, I am extremely thankful for his involvement
and interest for providing necessary guidance regarding
concept clarity of the assignment and support during all the
stages of this assignment.
Case 1: Sanjay Nagore vs Braj Mohan Garg on 21 January
2020. (Essentials of valid contract)

Issue

Parties to the case:

a) Plaintiff: Braj Mohan Gupta
b) Defendant: Sanjay Nagore

The facts of the case:

Plaintiff Braj Mohan Gupta has filed a suit of recovery of Rs. 2,72,494 against
the defendant. B.M. Gupta is a professionally qualified Cost Accountant &
Company Secretary. Accuser renders Executive Placement to different
corporates/experienced professionals in consideration of agreed professional
fees. Executive placement services in its ambit covers management of Large
Data Bank of Resumes, which are received through goodwill besides
advertisements on Job Portal Naukari.com etc. The defendant, a well- qualified
professional having over 15 years of experience with different companies was
working as Senior Manager-HR & IR with Maral Overseas Ltd. since December
2005. He visited the office of the accuser on 17.10.2006 for seeking a job in a
company. The defendant filed up a registration form and agreed to pay the
professional fees to the accuser payable at different stages and signed one
undertaking. Defendant also gave one cheque dated 10.11.06 for Rs. 11,224/-
to the accuser. Accuser organised the interview of defendant on 08.03.2007
with Machino Polymers Ltd. Thus, defendant became liable to make payment
of Rs. 11,224. This cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Defendantkept on following up with the plaintiff for a better job and promised
to pay agreed professional fees. This cheque was again dishonoured.
Defendant met with accuser and filled up another confirmation of placement.
Accuser kept on following up for payment of balance agreed professional fees
with the defendant and defendant promise to clear the balance. Part payment
of Rs. 5500 by cheque dated 10.06.2008 was also paid. This cheque was
encashed. Defendant, however left Minda Sai Ltd. on 15.07.2008 and joined
Continental Carbon India Ltd. as DGM-HR and Admin. The defendant left Minda
Sai Ltd. within six months of joining; therefore, he was however liable to pay as
per undertaking dated 17.06.2006 signed by him. No payment has been made by
the defendant, hence this suit.
1. Whether the accuser is entitled for the recovery as asked for?
2. Any other relief as asked?

Rules:
It is important to mention here that so far as facts of this case are concerned,
defendant is Ex-parte here in this case. This fact thus remains uncontroverted
and cannot be questioned by the Court, however, the plaintiff is to satisfy the
Court on the issues of law. The counsel for plaintiff during arguments has been
asked to explain that whether any such agreement which is allegedly entered
into by the plaintiff with the defendant is legally enforceable as per Indian
Contract Act or not

"Contract"- An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.

"Void Contract" - A contract which ceased to be enforceable by law becomes

void whenit ceased to be enforceable.

"Agreement" - Every promise and every set of promises forming the

consideration foreach other, is an agreement.

Section 23 which comes under chapter 2 of Indian Contract act is an

important Section which is relevant here to mention. Section 23 of Indian
Contract Act is:

"What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not." The consideration
or objectof an agreement is lawful, unless-

It is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat

the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the
person or property of another; or the Court regards it is immoral or opposed
to public policy.
In each of these cases, the consideration of object of an agreement is said to be
unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is
void.

Analysis
The first requirement of Section 23 is not applicable here in this case as there
is no specific law by which any such agreement is forbidden. It is further
important to mention here that as there is no provision of any law available as
mentioned in any of the statute then it cannot be said to have defeat the
provisions of any law, if permitted. The third requirement of Section 23 is not
applicable here in this case as there is no specific law of liability by which any
such agreement is forbidden. The third requirement of Section 23 is that after
the consideration of object is fraudulent then it is enforceable. It is further
important to mention here that after careful examination of the record, the
proposal and acceptance in between the parties have been made with the free
consent of the parties. Defendant is expert in this case and there is nothing
from the side of the defendant, therefore, by which it could be said that
consent for defendant was obtain by some other means and the consent was
not free. The next ground mentioned in Section 23 Indian Contract Act is
analysed. The facts and circumstances of the agreement entered in between
the parties also does not come under the purview though it involves or implies
the injury to the person or property on another. So far as injury to a person or
property is concern, such an objection must come from the side of the
defendant. The defendant is however Ex-parte. The last ground of Section 23 of
Indian Contract Act is "the Court reflects it has an immoralor opposed to public
policy".

So, far as the ingredients of agreement as mentioned in Section 2 (e) of Indian

contract are concern the present alleged agreement in between the parties
stands to the test of an agreement as it is a promise and set of promises
forming consideration for each other. In the present case the defendant had
made a promise and set of promises forming consideration for each other i.e.,
if plaintiff arrange a suitable job to him then he shall pay accordingly to him as
per the agreement. It is important to mention here that every agreement
entered in between the parties may not necessarily be a contract as per u/sec.
2 (h). A contract which ceased to be enforceable by law becomes void as it is
defined. In other words, an agreement which is not enforceable by law or
ceased to be enforceable by law is not a contract in the eyes of law. So far as the
proposal and offer as mentioned above, both the parties as well as
consideration is involved therein, is concerned, there is no illegality in them as
the plaintiff has simply assure the defendant to arrange some job to him and
the defendant has accepted his offer. The consideration involved herein in this
case, however, is to be tested to the test of Section 23 and other relevant
sections of Indian Contract Act that whether the consideration and object
herein in.

Conclusion
The role of public official nowhere is seen in the facts of the present case. Thus,
the reasoning of trial court can be said to be not well founded. If such a
reasoning is to be followed, then all such placement agencies/firms would
have to be closed. Such an interpretation would not be in benefit of the society.
In view of a changing society, business, economic scenario, the interpretation
which could further the cause of economy has to be upheld. Hence, the court
impugned judgment and the same is set aside

Case2
INTRODUCTION

Breach of Contract:

Breach of Contract is a legal term that explains the violation of an agreement

that happens when one party fails to fulfill its promises consistent with the
provisions of the agreement.

Sometimes it involves interfering with the ability of another party to fulfill his
duties. A contract can be breached in whole or in part. Breach of Contract is
that the commonest reason contract disputes are delivered to court for
resolution.

A Breach of Contract suit must meet four requirements before it'll be upheld
by a court.The contract must be valid.
 The plaintiff or the party who’s suing for breach of contract must show that the
defendantdid indeed breach the agreement’s terms.
 The plaintiff must have done everything required in the contract.
 The plaintiff must be notified the defendant of the breach proceeding with filing a
lawsuit.

There are three types of Breach of Contract.

 Material
 Partial
 Anticipatory

 A material breach is one that's significant enough to make a case for the
aggrieved or casualty fromfulfilling a part of the contract.

 A breach of contract isn't as significant and doesn't normally excuse the

aggrieved party from performing their duties.

 An anticipatory breach is one where plaintiff suspects that the offending

 party might breach a contract by doing or falling to do something that
shows their intention not to complete their duties. Anticipatory breaches
can be very difficult to prove in court.

PARTIES INVOLVED

There are two parties involved in this breach of contract:

 Sachin Tendulkar who is considered as Plaintiff as he was one

who bring the caseagainst Spartan in Federal court of Australia.
 Spartan, company that manufactures bat is considered as
defendant because it was suedin the court by the plaintiff.

ISSUE
 In 2016, Sachin Tendulkar entered into a worldwide exclusive
sponsorship agreement with Sydney -based company “Spartan”,
which is an Australian bat manufacturing company to promote its
sporting goods and sportswear.
 Tendulkar alleged that Spartan unable to comply with its obligations
under the contract by failing to pay him royalties and endorsement
fees as per the agreement signed by both theparties.
 Spartan had continued to use his name and image even after the
termination of the agreement.
 Tendulkar provided his promotional services at various events of
spartan in both Mumbaiand London.
 Tendulkar, in the lawsuit a number of Spartan companies and their
directors, Kunal Sharma and Galbraith, alleged “breach of contract”,
misleading and deceptive conduct and sought injunctions, damages
 as well as cancellation of trade marks.

 Sachin decided to settle his lawsuit against bat- maker Spartan in

the Federal Court of Australia after the company apologised for
“breach of contract”.
 Spartan apologises to Tendulkar for its failure to honour his
sponsorship agreement and is grateful for Tendulkar’s patience in
resolving this dispute.

RULES OF LAW

The case is under breach of contract as Spartan had continued to use the
Tendulkar’s name and his imager even after the termination of the
agreement. It is said that when a breach of contract occurs or is alleged,
one or both the parties may wish to have the contract enforced on its
terms or may recover for any financial harm caused by the breach. And if
a dispute over a contract arises and informal attempts at resolution fail,
the most common next step is a lawsuit and here in the case mentioned
above we can see that Tendulkar had in the lawsuit against a number of
Spartan companies and its directors, alleged “breach of contract,
misleading and deceptive conduct” and sought injunctions, damages as
well as cancellation of trademark
ANALYSIS

Tendulkar had provided the company, his promotional services “Sachin by

Spartan” line of products and he was unable to pursue other sponsorship
opportunities for sporting goods and sportswear while the Spartan agreement
was in place. He has sued a spartan for unable to pay him
$ 3 million under an exclusive licensing agreement to use his name and image
on the company's products.

As per the Breach of Contract the company had used the name of Tendulkar
and his image on the company’s products even after the termination of the
agreement made between the company and Tendulkar. The company used his
trademark where Tendulkar was playing his square cut style.

Tendulkar alleged that the Spartan company had failed to comply with its
obligations under the agreement by failing to pay him royalties and
endorsement fees of $ 3 million under an exclusive licensing agreement signed
by both the parties. In September 2019, Tendulkar, an investor and an advisory
board member, terminated his association after the company defaulted on
payments running into crores, asking the company to stop using his name and
likeness. This shows that the Sachin Tendulkar has sued an Australian cricket
bat manufacturer under “breach of contract”.

On 13 may 2020, Sachin Tendulkar has filed a civil lawsuit with the Federal
Circuit Court in Sydney alleges Spartan failed to pay the cricketer royalties and
endorsement fees and continued to use his mage even after he terminated the
agreement.

Tendulkar was claiming "substantial damages" against Spartan and its directors
for breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct and also the suit
demands the cancellation of trademarks featuring Sachin' s silhouette
registered by one of the Spartan group companies. Mr. Tendulkar tried to make
every effort to resolve this dispute with Spartan before filing his case.

Spartan did not take his issue seriously and continued to use his image without
his authority. Mr. Tendulkar had no alternative but to take legal action and as
part of the settlement, a number of the Spartan companies have submitted to
judgment against them and the Spartan is permanently restrained by court
orders from using Tendulkar’s name, image and likeness including to falsely
suggest any endorsement by Sachin Tendulkar.
The company apologized to Tendulkar and the Spartan companies also
publicly acknowledged that Tendulkar has had no association with Spartan
since September 17, 2018, when Mr. Tendulkar terminated their sponsorship
agreement, the case is likely to go on trial this year the law firm said. Though
Tendulkar is glad to be able to put this dispute behind him and to reach an
amicable settlement with Spartan out of Court. Lastly Tendulkar's lawyer,
Siabon Seet, said that they are able to resolve this issue for Tendulkar is
entitled to the protection of his own name and image against false
endorsement.

CONCLUSION

As the Sachin Tendulkar entered the sports sponsorship in 2016 and he signed
the agreement with Australian bat manufacturing company spartan for $2
million dollars. In 2018 the agreement was terminated though the company was
still using his name while promoting its products, so Sachin Tendulkar filed the
case against the company for using his name and not providing the loyalty and
amount of endorsement after the agreement terminated. Later the company
apologies for using his name. Tendulkar is glad to be able to put this dispute
behind him and to reach an amicable settlement with Spartan out of Court and
he became successful in protection of his own name against false endorsement.