MOOT COURT

This Moot Court is submitted towards the partial fulfillment of

1st semester 3Years LL.B. 2021/2022

Submitted by:

Name:-

Roll No:-

Subject:-

Paper:-

Under the Guidance of :-

Submitted to:

G.M.Law College,Puri
Madhusudan law University
Cuttack, Odisha
 Before The District Court of Senior Civil Judge , Delhi.

R . D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff)

V.

Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant)

Case concerning with breach of contract and related issues

Memorial for the plaintiff.

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................

ISSUES RAISED..............................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS........................................................

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED.......................................... ……………….

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Hon‟ble – honorable
2. i.e. – that is
3. SC – Supreme Court
4. Dtd.- dated
5. CISG- Contracts of the International Sale of Goods
6. ICA-Indian Contract Act 1872
7. SLG-Sale of Goods Act 1930
8. u/s-under section
9. s/d-signed.
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

PRECEDENTS:-

1. Mam Trading Co. Ltd. v. Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. 24 BLD (HCD ) 2004

2. Chitranji Lal Ram Partnership firm v. Chandgi Ram Kundan Lal and Co. AIR 1967 del 158

3. Bengal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Comissioners for the port of Calcutta AIR 1971 Cal 357.

4. Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd. v. Trimurthi Plastics 2013 SCC online Kar 6595

5. Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2009 5 SCC 142

6. Oil Natural Gas Ltd. v. Offshore Enterprise Ltd. (2011) 14 SCC 147

7. Karsandas H. Thacker v. Saran Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1981

8. Shanti Devi v. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, AIR 2007 DOC 102 (NCC).

9. Hadley v. Baxendale (1843-60) All ER Rep 461

BOOKS :-

1. Avtar Singh – Sale of Goods Act

2. Partnership Act & Sale of Goods Act – Dr. S.K. Kapoor

3. R.K Bangia – Business Law

4. Avtar Singh – Contract and Specific Relief

5. Contracts of International Sale of Goods.

STATUTES:-

1. The Indian Contract Act 1872

2. The Sale of Goods Act 1930

WEBSITES:-

1. Indiankanoon.org

2. Legalcrystal.com

3. Scconline.com

4. Lawctopus.com

5. Manupatra.com

6. https://advocateslegion.files.wordpress.com .
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the suit filed before this Honourable Court. The suit
concerning “breach of contract and related issues” is filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge in accordance
with the Section 6, Section 9 and Section 20 of the Civil Procedural Code , the Court has the jurisdiction to decide
all the matters referred to it for decision. Both the parties shall accept the Court’s decision as final and binding
and execute in good faith.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A Company “R D” in the name of R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd operates in ladies ware . It earned huge profits
over the years and eventually decided to expand its business by introducing a number of varieties in kids wear.

2. In order to achieve the above objective , they approached the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd ., a large manufacturer of
garments in kids wear garments. “R D” entered into a contract for the purchase of kids wear garments . The
contract price was Rs.6,00,000 / and both the parties agreed upon a payment schedule . R D Parmanandka Pvt.
Ltd agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/ partially upon the delivery of kids wear clothes on 1st January 2017 and a full and
final payment of Rs.2,00,000 on 1st March 2017 .

3. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd on the agreed date i.e. 1st January
2017 as per the contract. However , shortly after taking the delivery of the clothes , R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd
looses a profitable contract with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand for
their kids wear garments. Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd , was also suffering from financial difficulties due to a number of
legal actions brought against it.

4. It was realised by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd that R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd would be unable to pay the remaining
amount of Rs.2,00,000 on 1st March 2017 , Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd agreed to accept Rs. 50,000 in full satisfaction of
the debt. R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd duly paid such amount on 1st March 2017.

5. On 3rd March 2017 Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the rest of the clothes to R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd.

6. On delivery it was found that the clothes were of poor quality . On 4th March a notice was sent to the to
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., to exchange the clothes .the notice was acknowledged and accepted by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.
However , no exchange took place . On 20th march second notice was sent which was neither acknowledged nor
replied.

7. Hence R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd and claims Rs. 1,50,000 for breach
of contract . Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd contended that it was not bound to pay the amount claimed in the suit because
the clothes were of good qualities.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

❖ Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if it was then what was
the effect of it on the original contract.
❖ Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd..
❖ Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach.
❖ Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if it was then what
was the effect of it on the original contract:- R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd had entered into a valid contract to
purchase kids wear garments from Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd for the ascertained price of Rs. 6,00,000. Under Section
16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 it was a valid agreement to sell. Both had agreed on a schedule of payment .
After sometime , Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd realised that R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd might not able to pay the sum due
so Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., agreed to accept Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.2,00,000 as decided per the original contract.
This was a part remission of the contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd under section 63 of The Indian Contract Act ,
1872 .

2) Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. According to the paying schedule in the
contract R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd were supposed to pay Rs.4,00,000 on taking the delivery of the clothes on
1st January 2017 and had to pay the rest of the amount Rs.2,00,000 as full and final settlement on 1st March
2017 but the full delivery of clothes was not received on 1st January , only a part delivery was received and the
rest was received on 3rd March 2017, which is a breach of contract under Section 47 of The Indian Contract Act
1872. The quality of the rest of the clothes delivered on 3rd March 2017 was poor and regardless of the notices
sent to the Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., out of which one was acknowledged and accepted and the other was ignored the
goods were not exchanged. The supply of poor quality of clothes is a breach of contract under Section 16(1) of
„Sale of Goods Act 1930. This was a breach of contract under Section 39 of the Indian Contracts 1872.

3) Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach. The plaintiff accrued losses on various
grounds by the breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., firstly , all the goods were not delivered on the date
mutually decided(1st January 2017) by the parties as per the contract, instead the full delivery was received 2
months later on 3rd March 2017, due to this delay the plaintiff suffered a loss in sale and business for 3 months .
When the remaining clothes were delivered to the plaintiff were found out to be of poor quality which could not be
sold by the plaintiff and they were not even exchanged by the defendants despite two notices sent to them
expressing the foresaid contention.

4) Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000 The plaintiff suffered loss of sale and
business for three months due to the late delivery of all the goods by the defendant. Besides that , the rest of the
goods when provided were found to be of poor quality and could not be sold which amounted to a loss equal to
the amount paid for the poor quality products as that amount could not be recovered through sales. All these
losses amounted to Rs.1,50,000. Also the poor quality products occupied unnecessary space as they were not
exchanged despite the notices sent.

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

1.)Whether the acceptance of a sum different than that in the contract was valid and if it was then what
was the effect of it on the original contract:- The plaintiff R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd had entered into an
agreement with a Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd for the delivery of kids wear garments under Section 4 of the Sale of Goods
Act 1930. According to the Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 , in case of transfer of property of goods is
to take place at a furniture time or to some conditions to be fulfilled after , the contract is called an agreement to
sell. It becomes a sale when the time elapses and the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the
goods to be transferred .

The defendant was supposed to give the full delivery of the garments on 1st January 2017 and the plaintiff
Pvt. Ltd were supposed to pay Rs.4,00,000 in exchange of the full delivery and the full and final payment of
Rs.2,00,000 was to be payed on 1 st March 2017 . Accordingly R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd payed Rs.4,00,000
on 1st January though the full payment was recieved .

After sometime when both the parties were facing financial challenges , the defendant realised that the
plaintiff might not be able to pay the final payment due of Rs.2,00,000 , hence the plaintiff agreed to accept
Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.2,00,000 due to be payed by the plaintiff. This a part remission of the contract by the
defendant according to the Section 63 of The Indian Contract Act 1872 . According to Section 63 of the Indian
Contract Act 1872 that every promisee may dispe1 nse with or remit , wholly or in part , the performance of the
promise made to him , may extend the time of performance or may accept instead of it any satisfaction which he
thinks fit. Here in the case the promisee on his accord agreed to accept an amount of Rs.50,000 instead of
Rs.2,00,000 which he thought he was fit. Hence this was a valid remission to the contract and no other changes
were agreed upon to be made in the contract by the parties and the rest of the contract was supposed to be
performed in the same way it was decided to be and the defendants were still obliged to pay the remaining clothes
which were supposed to be delivered on 1st January 2017.

2.) Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. According to the facts of the case the
plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the delivery of kids wear clothes for a consideration of
Rs.6,00,000 and a payment schedule was agreed upon according to which a payment of Rs.4,00,000 was to be
made by the palintiff on the delivery of goods on 1st January and the whole 2 delivery should have been made on
that date. According to the facts of the case it is mentioned that a payment schedule was agreed upon by the
parties and not a schedule for deliveries , the payments were to be made in parts but nowhere in the contract was
it mentioned that part goods will be delivered. It was clearly mentioned in facts that “ R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd
agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/ partially on the delivery of the kids wear garments on 1st January 2017 and a final
payment of Rs.2,00,000/ on 1st March 2017.

It was never ever mentioned anywhere in the contract that the full and final settlement was to be paid on
recieving the part delivery of the clothes. The defendant was supposed to deliver the whole on 1st January but a
part of it was delivered in 3rd March which in inconsistent with the contract and is therefore a breach of contract
according to Section 52 of The Indian Contract Act 1872 . Accoding to this section 52 in a contract when the order
in which the reciprocal promises are to be performed in that order ; and where the order is not expressly fixed by
the contract , they shall be performed in that order , in this case the order was clearly expressed in the form of a
payment schedule the defendant was supposed to deliver the whole before taking the full and final payment but
it did not deliver the whole on 1st January 2017 as required by the contract but on 3rd March 2017.

According to Section 55 of The Indian Contracts Act5 , when a party to a contract promises to do a certain
thing at or before a specified time , fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time , the contract , so
much it has not been performed , becomes voidable at the option of the person it was promised to. Also if the
seller delivers only a part of the goods and the goods delivered are in conformity of the contract Articles 46 and
50 of the CISG the buyer still might avoid the contract if there is a fundamental breach.

Also under article 49(2) of the act the buyer loses the right to delclare the contract void if the seller has
delivered the goods unless he or she does it in respect to late delivery which is fundamenatl breach and it should
be done within reasonable time after he has been made aware of the delivery.

As to the dispute over the delivery of the low quality goods on 3 rd March 2017, the remaining products
which were delivered after the full and final payment of Rs.50,000 were of poor quality which is again a breach of
the contract. According to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 where the buyer , expressly or by
implication , makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required , so as to show
that the buyer relies on the seller‟s skill or judgement , there is an impied condition that the goods shall be
reasonably fit for such purpose .

According to the facts of the case the defendant agreed to pay a lesser amount because he knew that the
plaintiff had suffered heavy losses in business and if he knew that the plaintiff suffered losses in bussiness that
implies that the defendant knew what business the plaintiff was in.

The court shall not entertain the contention of the defendants that the goods were not of poor quality
beacuase if that had been the case , then when a notice to exhange the poor quality products was sent to the
defendant it should have been expressed by them that the goods were not of poor quality but that was not done
but instead the defendant acknowledged and accepted the notice but no exchange took place and the second
notice was not even replied to. In the case KWALITY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CENTRAL
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, AIR 1965 SCC 1981 in the contract for 32 lakh bamboo mats when the bamboo
mats of poor quality were delivered to the applicant damages were awarded to the applicant for the breach of
contract in pursuance to Section 16 of The Sale of Goods Act 1930.

3) Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach. Accoding to the foresaid contract the full
delivery of the contract goods was not recieved by the plaintiff on the date agreed upon. Without any doubt that
led to loss of sale and business , loss of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff party . In the case Shanti Devi v.
Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, AIR 2007 DOC 102 (NCC) , it was held that when a promise has to be performed
before a certain or on a specific day then it must be performed before the lapse of that time. Even when the rest
of the goods due to be delivered were delivered on 3rd March 2017 they were found to be of poor quality which
could not be sold , traded and performed business and the consideration for that was paid to the defendant by the
plaintiff on time . Also according to the facts the defendant very well knew that the plaintiff was suffering heavy
losses in business and would be affected greatly by loss of sale and business that the delivery of poor quality of
products would result in. So the plaintiff accrued losses due to the partial and late delivery of the goods and also
due to the poor quality of the products delivered .

4) Whether the losses accrued to the plaintiff amounted to Rs. 1,50,000 According to the case Karsandas
H. Thacker v. Saraan Engg . Co. Ltd, AIR 1965 SCC 1981 ., Damages are to be awarded as compensation for any
loss or damage arsing naturally in the usual course of things from the breach of contract.

Also in the case Hadley v. Baxendale, All Er Rep 1846 certain principles were laid down . In this case plaintiff was
an extensive business miller , their mill was stopped by a breakage of the crankshaft by which the mill worked.
The defendants, a firm of carriers were engaged to carry the shaft to the manufacturers and patent for a new one.
The plaintiff‟s servant told the defebdants that the mill was stopped and the new shaft must be sent immediately
, but due to the neglect of the defendant the delivery was delayed and the plaintiff did not recieve the new shaft
for several days after the after they would have otherwise done. The action was bought for loss of profits they
would have made in the time delayed. In this beacause the complete delivery was not recieved on the agreed
date , it led to loss of consignments and sales to the plaintiff which ultimately transforms into loss of profits even
after the delivery of the remaining products they were of poor quality and they could not be sold at all which again
resulted into loss of sales and profits and also the price paid for the goods which could not have be recovered .
According too the rules laid down t5 his case only general damages can be recovered and not special damages
and for a business of garments the loss of profits and sales is what takes place in usual course if the delivery is
on time or the quality and it is not any special damage. Also the defendant was aware of the conditions of the
plaintiff which were financially constrained.

So the damages accrued by the plaintiff includes :- loss of sale and profits due to the partial delayed delivery of
the goods for the two months + loss in godwill and reputation + loss for sale and profits of poor quality + loss of
compensation for the clothes which could not be recovered .

For the breach of contract on the part of the defendant under Section 3911 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, the
plaintiff claims damages under Section 73 of the Act12 .

Hence the plantiff is entitled to Rs.1,50,000 as damages for the breach of contract by the defendant.

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts stated , issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon‟ble District Court of Senior Civil Judge , Delhi , that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare. THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED Rs.1,50,000 AS DAMAGES
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. The court may be pleased to pass any other decree , which the court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.