MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………..2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................4

ISSUE RAISED............................................................................................................5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE........................................................................................7

ISSUE [1]. WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE [2] WHETHER THERE EXIST A VALID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

PARTIES?

ISSUE : 3 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET THE PROPOSAL

MONEY?

PRAYER....................................................................................................................8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SI.NO Abbereviations Full Form

1. & And

2. AIR All india report

3. Anr. Another

4. Art. Article

5. Const. Constitution

6. HC High court

7. Hon’ble Honorable

8. Ltd. Limited

9. No. Number

10. Ors. Others

11. Props. Proposition

12. SC Supreme court

13. SCC Supreme court cases

14. Supl. Supplement

15. V. versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1 Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal

2 Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

3 Brogden v. Metropolitan Rly. Co., 1877

4 Wiliams v. Crawardine

5 Gibbons v. Proctor

STATUTES

1. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2.SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Dr. R K Bangia’s Contract Law

2. Law of Contract I & II by Dr. S.S. Srivastava

SITES REFERRED

1. Indiankanoon.Org

2. Casemine.In

3.Manupatra.Com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE PLANTIFF HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BHUBANESWAR ,INVOKING THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION
12 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

Section 12 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963

12. Specific performance of part of contract.—
(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section the court shall not direct the
specific performance of a part of a contract.
(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the part
which must be left unperformed by only a small proportion to the whole in value and
admits of compensation in money, the court may, at the suit of either party, direct the
specific performance of so much of the contract as can be performed, and award
compensation in money for the deficiency.
(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the
part which must be left unperformed either—
(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though admitting of compensation in money;
or
(b) does not admit of compensation in money, he is not entitled to obtain a decree for
specific performance; but the court may, at the suit of other party, direct the party in
default to perform specifically so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, if the
other party—
(i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid the agreed consideration for the
whole of the contract reduced by the consideration for the part which must be left
unperformed and a case falling under clause (b), 1[pays or had paid] the consideration for
the whole of the contract without any abatement; and
(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the
contract and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage
sustained by him through the default of the defendant.
(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically
performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same
contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct
specific performance of the former part. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a
party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable to perform the whole of his part of it if a
portion of its subject matter existing at the date of the contract has ceased to exist at the
time of its performance.

It is most humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Anil a garment shop owner resides at Bhubaneswar.

2. His son namely Ankit, who was studying in Std. V at D.A.V Public

School,Chandrasekharpur did not return home on 01.09.2023 after his school was

over. Anurag who was an employee of Anil working in his garment shop was tasked

with the responsibility of searching the son of Anil.

3. Anurag searched for the son of Anil and was sent to Puri to search for Ankit.

4. After two days of occurrence i.e on 03.09.2023, Anil published an advertisement in

newspaper offering a reward of Rs. 5 lakh to anyone who find his son and bring him

back. Fortunately, on 05.09.2023,

5. Anurag located the son of Anil at Puri Sea beach and brought Ankit to his father.

6. As a reward for the successful efforts and for finding his son, Anil rewarded Anurag

with 50,000 Cash. But, Anurag was not happy with the reward and demanded 5 lakh

cash which was offered by Anil to anyone who found his son. However, Anil refused

to give Rs. 5 Lakh to Ankit.

7. Ankit aggrieved by refusal of Anil has filed a suit before Senior Civil Judge,

Bhubaneswar for award of 5 lakhs from Anil as per his offer. Examine, who will be

successful in the suit?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

ISSUE : 1

WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE : 2

WHETHER THERE EXIST A VALID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

ISSUE : 3

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET THE PROPOSAL MONEY?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE : 1

WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE?

The Plantiff humbly submits that the suit filed before the hon’ble court of senior civil judge,

Bhubaneswar is maintainable under section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sec. 12 of

Specific Relief Act, 1963 talks about specific performance of part of contract.

Section 12(1) contains the general rule regarding the part performance of the

contract. It provides that the court generally does not direct specific performance of a part of

the contract except in those cases which are mentioned in Sections 12 (2), (3) and (4). That

means the general principle, that specific performance of a part of the contract is not granted

by the court, is mentioned in Section 12(1) and exceptions, that specific performance of a part

of the contract may be granted by the court, are given in Section 12(2), (3) and (4).

ISSUE : 2

WHETHER THERE EXIST A VALID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

Yes, in the present case there is a valid agreement between the parties, as per sec. 2 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872. Sec. 2(a) of ICA, 1872 tells about proposal, sec. 2(b) tells about

acceptance and sec. 2(e) tells about a valid agreement.

ISSUE : 3

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET THE PROPOSAL MONEY?

Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to get the reward money from the defendant. The offer of the

defendant was a general offer and anyone who accepts and perform it is entitled to get the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

reward. The plaintiff accepted the offer by bringing back the defendant's son home. As per

sec. 8 of ICA, 1872 if an offer requires an act to be done then performing that act will be

consider as acceptance of the offer.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE : 1

WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE?

The Plantiff humbly submits that the suit filed before the hon’ble court of senior civil judge,

Bhubaneswar is maintainable under section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sec. 12 of

Specific Relief Act, 1963 talks about specific performance of part of contract.

Section 12(1) contains the general rule regarding the part performance of the

contract. It provides that the court generally does not direct specific performance of a part of

the contract except in those cases which are mentioned in Sections 12 (2), (3) and (4). That

means the general principle, that specific performance of a part of the contract is not granted

by the court, is mentioned in Section 12(1) and exceptions, that specific performance of a part

of the contract may be granted by the court, are given in Section 12(2), (3) and (4).

12. Specific performance of part of contract.—

(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, the court shall not direct the

specific performance of a part of a contract.

(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the part

which must be left unperformed be a only a small proportion to the whole in value and admits

of compensation in money, the court may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific

performance of so much of the contract as can be performed, and award compensation in

money for the deficiency.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part

which must be left unperformed either—

a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though admitting of compensation in money;

or

b) does not admit of compensation in money;he is not entitled to obtain a decree for

specific performance; but the court may, at the suit of the other party, direct the party

in default to perform specifically so much of his part of the contract as he can

perform, if the other party-- (i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid the

agreed consideration for the whole of the contract reduced by the consideration for

the part which must be left unperformed and in a case falling under clause (b)[pays or

has paid] the consideration for the whole of the contract without any abatement; and

(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of

the contract and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or

damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant.

(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically

performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same

contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct specific

performance of the former part.

First essential of part performance under Section 12(2) is that one of the parties to

contract is unable to perform a part of the contract. Section 12(3) talks about a situation

where the promisor is unable to perform a part of the contract. Important fact is that

unperformed part forms a considerable part of the whole.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

In the present matter the defendant made a general offer and the plaintiff accepted it by

fulfilling the condition of the offer. By the way of offer and acceptance both parties made

legal promise to perform their part of performance. But, the defendant failed to perform his

part and didn't gave the specified amount mentioned in the general offer. Therefore, the

plaintiff filled a suit in the senior civil judge, Bhubaneswar for the award money from the

defendant as per his offer.

ISSUE : 2

WHETHER THERE EXIST A VALID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

Yes, in the present case there is a valid agreement between the parties, as per sec. 2 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872. Sec. 2(a) of ICA, 1872 tells about proposal, sec. 2(b) tells about

acceptance and sec. 2(e) tells about a valid agreement.

Sec. 2

(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing

anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said

to make a proposal;

(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is

said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise;

(e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an

agreement;

In this case the defendant made a general offer to give Rs. 5 lakh to anyone who

finds his son and bring him back. The plaintiff found the defendant's son and brought him

back. This act of the plaintiff constituted valid acceptance by the part of the plaintiff as per

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that if a party performs the conditions

mentioned in an offer, it constitutes a valid acceptance of the offer.

CJ of Allahabad high court in the case of Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal1, held

that wherein the father of a young boy who ran from home issued a pamphlet for a reward for

anyone who would find him. The Plaintiff found him at the railway station and sent a

Telegram to his father. The Court held that the handbill was an offer that was made to the

world at large and anyone who fulfilled the conditions is deemed to have accepted it.

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt2 is a landmark case in the law of contract that deals with the

issue of offer and acceptance. The case was decided by the Privy Council in 1913.The court

found that Gauri Dutt’s promise to pay the reward was an offer, and that Lalman’s search for

his nephew was an acceptance of that offer. The court noted that an offer can be accepted by

performing the requested act, and that Lalman’s search was the performance of the requested

act.

The court rejected Gauri Dutt’s argument that the offer was only for the purpose of finding

his nephew alive. The court explained that the offer was not limited to finding the nephew

alive, but was for the act of finding the nephew, regardless of whether he was alive or dead.

Therefore, the court found that Lalman had accepted the offer by performing the requested

act, and that Gauri Dutt was bound to pay the promised reward.

Therefore, the case established the principle that an offer can be accepted by performing

the requested act, and that an offer may be for a specific act rather than a specific result.

1
Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal
2
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

Also, as per sec. 2(e) of the ICA, 1872 when a promise forms consideration for each other it

becomes an agreement. Here, the amount of 5 lakh rupees is the consideration for the plaintiff

and bringing back the son is the consideration for the defendant, therefore it is a valid

agreement between the parties.

ISSUE : 3

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO GET THE PROPOSAL MONEY?

Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to get the reward money from the defendant. The offer of the

defendant was a general offer and anyone who accepts and perform it is entitled to get the

reward. The plaintiff accepted the offer by bringing back the defendant's son home. As per

sec. 8 of ICA, 1872 if an offer requires an act to be done then performing that act will be

consider as acceptance of the offer.

For an acceptance to be valid, the person accepting the offer must communicate

their acceptance to the person making the offer. Simply thinking or agreeing mentally is not

sufficient. The communication can be either expressed or implied. However, if the offer

requires the offeree to take some action, performing that action is considered

acceptance.

For an acceptance to be considered valid under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, certain

Section 7 emphasises that an acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. It should be

expressed either explicitly or implicitly unless the proposal specifies a particular acceptance

manner. If the proposal states how the acceptance should be communicated, the offeree must

comply with that specified method to indicate their consent.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

Section 8: Acceptance by Performance

Section 8 deals with situations where an offer can be accepted without explicit

communication of acceptance. According to this section, if the offeree performs the

conditions mentioned in the offer or accepts the consideration for a reciprocal promise, it is

considered an acceptance of the offer. In such cases, the offer is deemed accepted even if

there is no explicit communication of acceptance.

These provisions in the Indian Contract Act outline the requirements for a valid acceptance. It

is important to ensure that the acceptance is absolute and unqualified and to be aware of

circumstances where acceptance can be implied through performance rather than explicit

communication.

Case: Brogden v. Metropolitan Rly. Co., 18773

In this case, Brogden and Metropolitan Rly Co. had been doing business informally without a

formal contract. Later, the defendant (Metropolitan Rly Co.) created a formal contract. They

drafted a contract and sent it to Brogden (complainant). Brogden changed the contract and

returned it but did not explicitly communicate acceptance. Nevertheless, both parties

continued their business as usual. When a dispute arose, the validity of the contract was

questioned.

The Court ruled that there was a valid contract between the parties. Even though the

acceptance was not communicated, the defendant’s conduct indicated acceptance. The coal

was delivered, and payment was made according to the draft. Thus, the contract was

considered valid.

Brogden v. Metropolitan Rly. Co., 18773

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

Although the plaintiff had no knowledge about the offer at the time of performing the act

still it will be consider as a valid acceptance as the offer was a general offer and in case of

general offer knowledge is not an essential part. in the case of Wiliams v. Crawardine4, a

similar precedent was set, confirming that knowledge of a general offer is not essential for

acceptance.

Also, In the case of Gibbons v. Proctor5, a Superintendent of Police had offered a reward to

anyone providing information about a criminal. A police officer, unaware of the reward,

provided valuable information to the Superintendent through a third party. However, before

the information reached the Superintendent, the police officer learned about the reward and

claimed it. The court ruled in favour of the police officer, establishing the principle that an

offer can be accepted even without direct knowledge of it.

As per the sec 8 and precedents of the court it is clear that an acceptance of offer can be done

by performing the act if the offer requires some action to be done and also in case of a

general offer knowledge is not an essential element. So, in this matter the plaintiff is entitled

to get the 5 lakh rupees mentioned in the offer from the defendant as he performed the

prescribed action by bringing back the son of the defendant home.

4
Wiliams v. Crawardine
5
Gibbons v. Proctor5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

 MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT MEMORIAL

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the

counsel on behalf of the plantiff humbly prays before the Hon’ble District Judge,

Bhubaneswar to kindly adjudge and declare.

1. To maintain this suit.

2. order the defendant to perform his part and give the reward money to the plaintiff

Or to pass any appropriate relief that the Hon’ble court may deem fit and is in the best

interest of justice, equality and good conscience,

And for this act of kindness, the counsel on behalf of the plantiff , as duty bound shall

forever pray.

All of which most humbly and respectfully submitted

s/d__________

COUNSEL FOR THE PLANTIFF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF