Section-A (D-1) Respondent Memorial

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT
TEAM CODE: D-1
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024
Before,
THE CIVIL COURT OF HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CASE NO. __ OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
AMIXENT CORPORATION...............................................................................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
REHIN ENTERPRISES.................................................................................................RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 10
I. The Unforeseen Disruptions In The Production And Supply Chain Of Amixent

Corporation Do Not Constitute Grounds For Frustration Of The Contract, Rendering
Performance Impossible Or Radically Different From What Was Originally Contemplated .... 10
II. Amixent Corporation Did Not Take Reasonable Steps To Mitigate The Impact Of The
Disruptions And Fulfill Their Contractual Obligations In Light Of Unforeseen Circumstances
11
III. The Doctrine Of Commercial Impracticability Does Not Apply In This Case, Considering
The Extent Of The Disruptions And Their Impact On Amixent Corporation's Ability To
Perform Under The Contract .......................................................................................................... 14
IV. Rehin Enterprises Acted Reasonably In Refusing To Entertain Modifications To The

Contract Terms Proposed By Amixent Corporation, Considering The Nature And Severity Of
The Disruptions ............................................................................................................................... 17
V. Amixent Corporation Should Be Held Liable For Damages Resulting From The
Termination Of The Contract And They Should Not Be Absolved Of Liability Due To The
Doctrine Of Frustration Or Impossibility....................................................................................... 18
PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Page | 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
§ SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ANR. ANOTHER
ART. ARTICLE
CO. COMPANY
LTD. LIMITED
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
V. VERSUS
Page | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Aluminum Co. of America v. Essex Group Inc., 499 F. Supp.53 (W.D. Pa.1980). ............................... 15
Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd. v. James B Fraser & Co, [1944] AC 265 (HL) ...................................... 16
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors, 2017 (14) SCC 80 ....... 9, 18
Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri, AIR 1942 BOM 302............................ 12
Kamal Kishore Singhal v. Delhi Development Authority, 1997CRILJ2106 ......................................... 13
M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Vedanta Limited and Anr, O.M.P. (I) (COMM) & I.A.
3697/2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Maula Bux v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 1955. ..................................................................................... 20
Mineral Park Land v. Howard, 1916 Cal. 529 ..................................................................................... 15
Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Infocom Technologies, 2018:DHC:3687-DB .................................... 17
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2019 SC 4055 ........................... 12
Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh, 1968 AIR 1024 ................................................. 19
Sailendra Kumar v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd, [2012] 12 SCR 1.............................. 12
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61 .................................. 10
Taylor v Caldwell, [1863] 3 B&S 826 .................................................................................................. 17
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265 ................................................................ 16
Winston Industries, LLC v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 748 A. 2d 961 (Me. 2000) ...................................... 17
Statutes
The Contract Act, 1872, at §55. ............................................................................................................ 20

The Contract Act, 1872, at §56 ....................................................................................................... 14, 15
The Contract Act, 1872, at §73 ............................................................................................................. 19
The Contract Act, 1872, at §74. ............................................................................................................ 20
Page | 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Hon’ble Court possesses jurisdiction over the dispute between Amixent Corporation and
Rehin Enterprises. The subject matter falls within its civil jurisdiction concerning interpreting and
enforcing contractual obligations. Both parties conduct business within the territorial confines of
this jurisdiction, establishing territorial jurisdiction. The Defendant resorts to the relevant
provisions of §9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in filing of the present case.
THIS MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, AND

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE PRESENT MATTER.
Page | 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Amixent Corporation, a manufacturer of high-tech components, entered into a contract with Rehin
Enterprises, a leading electronics retailer, to supply a large quantity of specialized microchips for
use in their latest line of consumer gadgets.
II. The contract stipulated strict delivery timelines and quality standards, with penalties for any
delays or deficiencies in performance.
III. Shortly after the contract was executed, unforeseen circumstances arose that disrupted the
production and supply chain of Rehin Corporation. World was affected by COVID-19.
IV. As per contract the raw materials were to be supplied from China which was hot bed of COVID-
19.
V. A global shortage of key raw materials essential for manufacturing the microchips, coupled with
logistical challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulted in significant delays in
fulfilling the contractual obligations.
VI. Despite their best efforts to mitigate the impact of these disruptions, Amixent Corporation found
themselves unable to meet the agreed-upon delivery deadlines.
VII. A Hyderabad based firm Labsense Limited had enough raw materials when Rehin approached
they asked for higher price.
VIII. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, they promptly notified Rehin Enterprises of the delays
and proposed alternative solutions, such as sourcing the microchips from alternative suppliers or
revising the delivery schedule.
IX. Rehin Enterprises, however, refused to entertain any modifications to the contract terms and
insisted on strict compliance with the original agreement.
X. Faced with mounting pressure from their own customers and stakeholders, Rehin Enterprises
eventually terminated the contract and sought damages from Amixent Corporation for breach of
contract.
Page | 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
-Issue I-
Whether the unforeseen disruptions in the production and supply chain of Amixent Corporation
constitute grounds for frustration of the contract, rendering performance impossible or radically
different from what was originally contemplated?
-Issue II-
Whether Amixent Corporation took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the disruptions and
fulfill their contractual obligations in light of the unforeseen circumstances?
-Issue III-
Whether the doctrine of commercial impracticability applies in this case, considering the extent of the
disruptions and their impact on Amixent Corporation's ability to perform under the contract?
-Issue IV-
Whether Rehin Enterprises acted reasonably in refusing to entertain modifications to the contract
terms proposed by Amixent Corporation, considering the nature and severity of the disruptions?
-Issue V-
Whether Amixent Corporation should be held liable for damages resulting from the termination of the
contract, or whether they are absolved of liability due to the doctrine of frustration or impossibility?
Page | 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
-Issue I-
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that difficulties in performance do not qualify as
force majeure events if they do not render performance impossible or substantially different. A case
before the Delhi High Court highlighted that frustration of contract occurs only when performance
becomes truly impossible or unlawful, not merely inconvenient or difficult. Despite delays caused by
COVID-19, Amixent Corporation was still able to fulfill their contractual obligations, reinforcing the
principle that unforeseen challenges do not justify contract frustration.
-Issue II-
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that Amixent Corporation did not effectively reduce
the impact of COVID-19 disruptions, violating their responsibility to fulfill contractual obligations in
good faith. They argue that despite being aware of the challenges, Amixent failed to take proactive
measures or communicate effectively with Rehin Enterprises, thereby worsening the situation. In
contrast, Rehin Enterprises immediately addressed the disruptions and remained open to solutions.
Therefore, the accused maintains that they cannot be held responsible for the alleged breach without
taking into account the circumstances fairly.
-Issue III-
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that Amixent Corporation could have fulfilled its
obligations at excessive costs, so the Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability doesn't apply. They
contend that Amixent should have foreseen supply chain disruptions and accounted for them in the
contract. Rehin Enterprises seeks compensation for additional damages incurred due to Amixent’s
failure to fulfill its contractual duties.
-Issue IV-
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that sticking to the original contract terms is
necessary unless performance becomes genuinely impossible. The Defendant cites legal precedents
and emphasizes the importance of making reasonable efforts to mitigate delays and adhering to
contractual deadlines unless explicitly provided otherwise. As the contract did not allow for
modifications to delivery timelines, the Defendant asserts that Rehin Enterprises acted appropriately
in denying the request for modifications. Therefore, they argue that Amixent Corporation must fulfill
its contractual obligations as originally agreed upon.
Page | 8

-Issue V-
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that Amixent should have foreseen and reduced the
impact of the pandemic, and that both parties had an obligation to reduce damages. Referring to legal
precedents, the Defendant concludes that Amixent’s violation of the contract warrants compensation
for damages incurred by Rehin Enterprises, setting aside their defense. Therefore, the Defendant
asserts that Amixent Corporation is responsible for paying damages according to the relevant sections
of the Indian Contract Act, as a consequence of their breach.
Page | 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. THE UNFORESEEN DISRUPTIONS IN THE PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN OF AMIXENT

CORPORATION DO NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR FRUSTRATION OF THE CONTRACT,
RENDERING PERFORMANCE IMPOSSIBLE OR RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED
1. It is humbly submitted that the unforeseen disruptions in the production and supply chain of
Amixent Corporation do not constitute grounds for frustration of the contract, rendering
performance impossible or radically different from what was originally contemplated because
delay in supplying raw material due to unforeseeable circumstances does not lead to frustration of
contract under §56.
2. In this particular instance, there was a delay in the delivery of materials due to a supply chain
disruption. However, the Amixent Corporation was still able to fulfill the contract within the
agreed-upon time frame.
3. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi presided over a case1 involving a Power Purchase Agreement
between an Appellant and a respondent. The agreement involved the construction and operation
of an Ultra Mega Power Project in Krishnapatnam, with imported coal being the fuel source for
generating electricity. The Appellant was responsible for arranging the import of coal from
Indonesia.
4. The Appellant failed to fulfill their end of the contract, citing the escalated price of coal as a result
of amendments to Indonesian law as a force majeure event. However, the Delhi High Court
rejected this argument.
5. The Court referred to the principles outlined in Energy Watchdog v. CERC2 and concluded that
the change in Indonesian law and the subsequent increase in the price of coal did not
automatically qualify as force majeure under the agreement.
6. In order to declare a contract frustrated under §56, it must be proven that the contract has become
impossible to fulfill. Mere alteration of fact does not equate to frustration of contract. The court
reaffirmed that the change in circumstances did not fundamentally affect the agreement that the
parties made.
7. The Court also emphasized that the Doctrine of Frustration, as outlined in §56 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, only comes into play when the performance of the contract has become
1
M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc v. Vedanta Limited and Anr, O.M.P. (I) (COMM) & I.A. 3697/2020.
2
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors, 2017 (14) SCC 80.
Page | 10

impossible or unlawful, not merely altered. The Court also stated that it could not absolve a party
from liability to fulfill their end of the contract merely because the performance of the contract
may become difficult due to a contemplated turn of events.
8. In this particular case, Amixent experienced a delay due to unforeseeable circumstances. The
contract became more difficult for them to fulfill, but this cannot be used as an excuse.
9. Force Majeure must be declared as soon as it arises and cannot be claimed retroactively. If any
force majeure event prevents or delays the execution of a duty under the contract for more than
ninety days, any party can cancel the contract at their discretion without any financial
repercussions.
10. The Kerala High Court has also ruled that the occurrence of a commercial difficulty or hardship to
perform a contract is not an excuse to back out from contractual obligations which the parties had
agreed to in the first place.3
11. The Court held that merely because the pandemic has made the performance of a contract
inconvenient, it was not a good reason for a party to retract from their obligations. The doctrine of
frustration as per §56 of the Contract Act will not apply merely because of commercial hardships.
12. In this case, Force Majeure was not declared after the disruption caused by COVID-19, nor was it
declared later. In order to declare a contract as frustrated, it needs to become impossible to
perform. In this case, there was delay in supply of raw material because of COVID-19. But it did
not become impossible for them to supply the raw material.
II. AMIXENT CORPORATION DID NOT TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT
OF THE DISRUPTIONS AND FULFILL THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN LIGHT OF
UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES
13. It is humbly submitted by the Defendant that 2.1 Amixent Corporation's failure to proactively
mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 disruptions reflects a breach of their duty to fulfill
contractual obligations in good faith; 2.2 Rehin Enterprises cannot be faulted for impossibility of
performance without Amixent Corporation showing sufficient efforts to fulfill contractual
obligations despite COVID-19 disruptions; 2.3 Amixent Corporation's lack of communication
exacerbates difficulties, hindering collaborative resolution and unfairly burdens Rehin
Enterprises; and 2.4 Rehin Enterprises diligently mitigated COVID-19 disruptions, contrasting
Amixent Corporation's failure to take proactive measures, thus exacerbating the situation.
2.1 Amixent Corporation's failure to proactively mitigate the impact of the COVID-19
disruptions reflects a breach of their duty to fulfill contractual obligations in good faith
3
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61.
Page | 11

14. Amixent Corporation had an obligation to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
disruptions and fulfill its contractual obligations. However, the lack of mitigation efforts by the
corporation demonstrates a failure to act diligently and in good faith towards fulfilling contractual
obligations.
15. Despite being aware of the pandemic's disruptions, Amixent Corporation failed to take proactive
measures to address the resulting challenges and explore alternate solutions. The absence of such
measures shows a lack of commitment towards fulfilling contractual obligations under unforeseen
circumstances.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission,4 laid emphasis on the duty to mitigate and held that parties must take reasonable
steps to minimize the impact of unforeseen events on contractual performance. This principle
establishes that parties to a contract have a duty to mitigate the impact of unforeseen events on
contractual performance.
17. This duty obligates parties to take reasonable steps to minimize losses and damages resulting from
such events. In the context of the present case between Amixent Corporation and Rehin
Enterprises, this means that the corporation had a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions on its ability to fulfill contractual obligations. The
failure to do so could be viewed as a breach of this duty.
2.2 Rehin Enterprises cannot be faulted for impossibility of performance without Amixent
Corporation showing sufficient efforts to fulfill contractual obligations despite COVID-19
disruptions
18. In the case of In the Bombay High Court case of Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar
Madan Mantri,5 the matter concerned a contract for the sale of land which could not be executed
due to changes in regulations.
19. The Court held that a party claiming impossibility of performance must demonstrate that they
have taken all reasonable measures to fulfill their obligations under the contract. The case
highlights the principle that parties cannot merely claim impossibility of performance without
establishing that they have taken all reasonable steps to meet their contractual obligations despite
unexpected events.
20. In this case, it implies that Amixent Corporation cannot simply assert that the disruptions caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic made performance impossible without first demonstrating that they
took all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the disruptions and fulfill their contractual
4
Supra note 2.
5
Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri, AIR 1942 BOM 302.
Page | 12

obligations to Rehin Enterprises.

21. Amixent Corporation failed to effectively communicate with Rehin Enterprises regarding the
challenges they encountered and did not collaborate in finding mutually acceptable solutions.
Effective communication and cooperation are critical in navigating unforeseen disruptions and
fulfilling contractual obligations in demanding circumstances.
2.3 Amixent Corporation's lack of communication exacerbates difficulties, hindering

collaborative resolution and unfairly burdens Rehin Enterprises
22. In The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) highlighted the importance
of effective communication and cooperation between parties involved in contractual relationships
in the case of Sailendra Kumar v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.6
23. The Commission emphasized that it is the duty of parties to communicate effectively and
cooperate in finding solutions to challenges that may arise during the performance of contracts.
24. This case underscores the necessity of Amixent Corporation to effectively communicate with
Rehin Enterprises and collaborate in finding alternative solutions to mitigate the impact caused by
the pandemic.
25. In the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India,7 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reiterated the significance of effective communication and cooperation
between parties involved in contractual relationships. The Court stated that it is the duty of parties
to communicate effectively and cooperate in finding solutions to challenges that may arise during
the performance of contracts.
26. This case emphasizes the importance of Amixent Corporation effectively communicating with
Rehin Enterprises and cooperating in finding alternative solutions to mitigate the impact of the
disruptions caused by the pandemic.
27. Therefore, it is submitted that Amixent Corporation's failure to communicate worsens the
situation, making it harder to find solutions together and unfairly placing a heavy burden on Rehin
Enterprises.
2.4 Rehin Enterprises diligently mitigated COVID-19 disruptions, contrasting Amixent

Corporation's failure to take proactive measures, thus exacerbating the situation
28. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Kamal Kishore Singhal v. Delhi Development Authority,8
stated that it is the responsibility of parties to a contract to anticipate any challenges that may arise
and take necessary actions to fulfill their contractual obligations.
6
Sailendra Kumar v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd, [2012] 12 SCR 1.
7
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2019 SC 4055.
8
Kamal Kishore Singhal v. Delhi Development Authority, 1997CRILJ2106.
Page | 13

29. The Court emphasized the need for parties to be proactive in finding ways to overcome obstacles
and ensure successful performance of contracts. This case law supports the argument of the
Defendant that Amixent Corporation should have taken proactive measures to overcome the
disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and fulfill its contractual obligations.
30. The Defendant submits that the COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to the
fulfillment of the contractual obligations between Amixent Corporation and Rehin Enterprises.
Rehin Enterprises acted diligently by immediately notifying Amixent Corporation of the
challenges and remained open to exploring alternative solutions to mitigate the impact of the
disruptions.
31. The Defendant further argues that Amixent Corporation failed to demonstrate sufficient efforts to
mitigate the effects of the disruptions and fulfill its contractual duties, despite the unforeseen
circumstances.
32. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that it cannot be held liable for the alleged breach of contract and
seeks a fair resolution that considers the extraordinary circumstances faced by both parties.
33. It is important to note that Amixent Corporation, despite being aware of the disruptions caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, failed to take proactive measures to address the challenges and ensure
the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
34. Additionally, Amixent Corporation did not effectively communicate with Rehin Enterprises
regarding the extent of the disruptions and did not cooperate in finding mutually acceptable
solutions.
35. Additionally, Amixent Corporation did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate the impact of
the disruptions and fulfill its contractual duties in a timely manner. These failures on the part of
Amixent Corporation contributed to the breakdown in contractual performance and cannot be
overlooked in the resolution of this matter.
III. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE,
CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF THE DISRUPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON AMIXENT
CORPORATION'S ABILITY TO PERFORM UNDER THE CONTRACT
36. It is humbly submitted that 3.1 the Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability does not apply in this
case; and 3.2 Amixent Corporation failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the
disruption.
3.1 The Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability does not apply in this case
37. The Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability is an exception to the general principle of contract
Page | 14

sanctity, arising when unexpected events make contract performance unduly burdensome or
impossible.
38. To apply this doctrine, the triggering event must not have been a fundamental assumption when
the contract was formed, and the unforeseen incident must genuinely render performance
impracticable.
39. Impracticability in Indian law comes under the scope of §56 of Indian Contract Act 9 in which it
has been held that “An agreement to do an impossible act is void”.
40. §5610 states a contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by
reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act
becomes impossible or unlawful.11
41. The fact that COVID-19 had already started spreading in China, which was a major source of raw
materials for Amixent Corporation, before the contract was executed. This suggests that the
possibility of supply chain disruptions due to the pandemic was foreseeable at the time of contract
formation, and Amixent Corporation should have accounted for such risks.
42. By entering into a contract that stipulated strict delivery timelines and quality standards, with
penalties for any delays or deficiencies in performance, Amixent Corporation assumed the risk of
potential disruptions that could impact their ability to comply with the contract terms.
43. The Court in Mineral Park Land v. Howard12 established the principle that “something is
considered legally impossible when it is not feasible, and something is deemed impracticable
when it can only be accomplished at an excessive and unreasonable cost.”
44. In this case, Amixent Corporation could have fulfilled its contractual obligations at an excessive
and unreasonable cost by sourcing the microchips from alternative suppliers or revising the
delivery schedule. Therefore, the doctrine of commercial impracticability does not apply.
45. According to the court's holding in Aluminum Co. of America v. Essex Group Inc,13 a party cannot
claim commercial impracticability if they had reason to know about the fact or circumstance that
rendered performance impracticable at the time of contract formation.
46. As a manufacturer operating in a global supply chain, had reason to know about the potential for
disruptions caused by events like pandemics or other crises that could impact supply chains and
logistics. Therefore, Amixent Corporation had reason to know about the possibility of such
disruptions and should have accounted for them in their contractual obligations.
47. In conclusion, the Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability does not apply in this case because
the unforeseen circumstances were not beyond the control of Amixent Corporation, and they
9
The Contract Act, 1872, at §56.
10
Supra note 9.
11
Id.
12
Mineral Park Land v. Howard, 1916 Cal. 529.
13
Aluminum Co. of America v. Essex Group Inc., 499 F. Supp.53 (W.D. Pa.1980).
Page | 15

could have fulfilled their contractual obligations at an excessive and unreasonable cost by
sourcing the microchips from alternative suppliers or revising the delivery schedule.
3.2 Amixent Corporation failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the disruption
48. Rehin Enterprises claims that Amixent Corporation did not adequately address the impact of
COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting global shortage of raw materials. This alleged failure by
Amixent Corporation has worsened the damages that Rehin Enterprises has suffered and
reinforces our argument for relief from contractual obligations.
49. In the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry,14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
emphasized the principle that the breaching party has a duty to mitigate damages by taking
reasonable steps to minimize the losses suffered by the non-breaching party. Failure to do so may
result in the breaching party being held liable for additional damages.
50. Parties who enter into a contract are bound by the principles of contract law, which require them
to take reasonable measures to limit damages in the event of a breach of contract. This obligation
necessitates that parties act in good faith to minimize losses suffered by the party who did not
breach the contract.
51. In this particular case, Amixent Corporation, being the party in breach, had a responsibility to
mitigate the disruptions' impact on Rehin Enterprises' business operations.
52. In the case of Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd. v. James B Fraser & Co.,15 the Privy Council
emphasized the importance of mitigating damages in contractual disputes. The failure to do so
may result in the breaching party being held liable for additional damages. Despite the disruptions
in the production and supply chain, Amixent Corporation failed to take adequate measures to
mitigate the impact on Rehin Enterprises.
53. Instead of proactively seeking alternative solutions and suppliers to fulfill their contractual
obligations, Amixent Corporation relied solely on Rehin Enterprises to bear the brunt of the
disruptions.
54. Amixent Corporation's failure to mitigate the impact of the disruptions exacerbated the damages
suffered by Rehin Enterprises. The delays in delivery and the inability to meet quality standards
due to the shortages of raw materials caused significant financial losses and reputational damage
to Rehin Enterprises.
55. These losses could have been minimized if Amixent Corporation had taken proactive steps to
address the disruptions. Rehin Enterprises contends that Amixent Corporation's failure to take
reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the disruptions further strengthens our claim for relief
from the contractual obligations.
14
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265.
15
Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd. v. James B Fraser & Co, [1944] AC 265 (HL).
Page | 16

56. Therefore, Rehin Enterprises seeks compensation for the additional damages incurred because of
Amixent Corporation's failure to fulfill its contractual obligations.
IV. REHIN ENTERPRISES ACTED REASONABLY IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN MODIFICATIONS

TO THE CONTRACT TERMS PROPOSED BY AMIXENT CORPORATION, CONSIDERING THE
NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THE DISRUPTIONS
57. The Defendant respectfully asserts that Rehin Enterprises acted reasonably in denying the request
for modifications to the contract. This was because certain contractual obligations had already
been made during the contract's execution.
58. The landmark case of Taylor v. Caldwell16 established that parties were only released from
fulfilling their obligations if the contract had become impossible to perform due to events beyond
their control. Therefore, Rehin Enterprises’ position necessitates strict adherence to the original
contract terms, unless performance is genuinely impossible.
59. Moreover, in Winston Industries, LLC v. Walmart Stores, Inc.,17 the Court held that the party
seeking relief must demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to mitigate the impact of the
force majeure event.
60. In the present case, Amixent Corporation should have made more substantial efforts to mitigate
the delays. The Defendant argues that Amixent Corporation did not fulfill this obligation and
therefore cannot rely on force majeure as a defense for non-performance.
61. Furthermore, in Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Infocom Technologies,18 the Court emphasized
the importance of adhering to contractual deadlines unless explicit provisions allowing for
extensions were present.
62. Therefore, Amixent Corporation must comply with the original delivery timelines unless the
contract explicitly permits modifications. The Defendant states that the contract between Rehin
Enterprises and Amixent Corporation did not provide for any modifications to the delivery
timelines, and thus any request for modifications is invalid.
63. In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that Rehin Enterprises acted within reason in
denying the request for modifications to the contract, and Amixent Corporation must fulfill its
contractual obligations as originally agreed upon.
16
Taylor v Caldwell, [1863] 3 B&S 826.
17
Winston Industries, LLC v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 748 A. 2d 961 (Me. 2000).
18
Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Infocom Technologies, 2018:DHC:3687-DB.
Page | 17

V. AMIXENT CORPORATION SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABSOLVED OF LIABILITY
DUE TO THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OR IMPOSSIBILITY
64. It is humbly submitted that Amixent Corporation should be held liable for damages resulting from
the termination of the contract and they should not be absolved of liability due to the doctrine of
frustration or impossibility.
65. Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Amixent Corporation cannot claim
absolute immunity from liability for failing to fulfill its contractual obligations. While it is
acknowledged that the pandemic brought about unprecedented disruptions, including global
supply chain interruptions and logistical hurdles, these circumstances do not automatically
absolve the corporation from its responsibilities under the contract.
66. Under the principles outlined in the Indian Contract Act, Frustration serves as a basis for
discharge of contractual obligations when performance becomes truly impossible or radically
different from what was initially intended.
67. However, the threshold for establishing frustration is high, requiring that the event rendering
performance impossible must be unforeseeable and beyond the control of the parties involved.
68. In this case, while the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were indeed unforeseen
and beyond the immediate control of Amixent Corporation, it is essential to scrutinize whether the
corporation took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of these disruptions and fulfill its
contractual duties to the best of its ability.
69. Moreover, the mere fact that performance became more challenging or economically burdensome
due to the pandemic does not necessarily constitute frustration under the law. As established by
the Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog,19 Frustration must render performance fundamentally
impossible, rather than merely inconvenient or costly.
70. Therefore, Amixent Corporation cannot absolve itself of contractual liability as they could have
reasonably foreseen the potential impact of the pandemic on its contractual obligations and could
have taken adequate measures to mitigate these effects.
5.2 Allocation of Liability and Principles of Mitigation

71. The Indian Contract Act provides principles governing the allocation of liability in cases of
contract breach. §73 of the Act20 states that when a contract is breached, the party suffering from
the breach is entitled to receive compensation from the party who has breached the contract.
19
Supra note 2.
20
Page | 18

72. In cases of contract breach, parties are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages
suffered. §7321 emphasizes the principle of mitigation, requiring the injured party to take
reasonable steps to minimize the loss resulting from the breach.
73. Rehin Enterprises had a duty to mitigate damages resulting from the termination of the contract.
Despite the frustrations caused by the pandemic, Rehin should have explored alternative suppliers
or strategies to minimize the impact on its business operations. Failure to do so may diminish
their claim for damages resulting from the contract termination.
74. In the present case, while Amixent Corporation did face genuine supply chain and logistical
disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, these did not render the performance of the
contract impossible per se. At best, Amixent would have had to procure raw materials at higher
costs from alternate suppliers.
75. However, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder
Singh22 that the Doctrine of Frustration cannot be applied where the promisor had a reasonable
alternative available to perform the contract, even if it meant additional burden or monetary loss.
76. Since Amixent Corporation did have alternate recourses available to discharge their obligations,
such as sourcing materials from third-party supplier Labsense Limited, their invocation of the
principle of frustration is unsustainable. They seek to avoid performance merely due to
commercial unavailability caused by increased costs.
77. By failing to deliver the contracted supplies within the stipulated time period, Amixent
Corporation committed a clear breach of contract, due to which Rehin Enterprises elected to
terminate the agreement as per their rights under §5523 of the Act.
78. It is settled law under §7324 and §7425 that damages arising from a breach of contract are to be
paid by the party committing such breach. In Maula Bux v. Union of India,26 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court awarded damages against the contractor for failure to perform.
79. Hence, it is humbly submitted that Amixent Corporation is liable to pay Rehin Enterprises
damages suffered as a result of the termination of the contract due to Amixent’s own breach.
Their defence under the Doctrine of Frustration or impossibility deserves to be set aside.
21
Supra note 20.
22
Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh, 1968 AIR 1024.
23
24
Supra note 20.
25
26
Maula Bux v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 1955.
Page | 19

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent
respectfully request this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and be pleased to:
❖ Hold that the unforeseen disruptions in the production and supply chain of Amixent Corporation
do not constitute grounds for frustration of the contract, rendering performance impossible or
radically different from what was originally contemplated.
❖ Hold that Amixent Corporation did not take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the
disruptions and fulfill their contractual obligations in light of unforeseen circumstances.
❖ Hold that the Doctrine of Commercial Impracticability does not apply in this case, considering the
extent of the disruptions and their impact on Amixent Corporation’s ability to perform under the
contract.
❖ Hold that Rehin Enterprises acted reasonably in refusing to entertain modifications to the contract
terms proposed by Amixent Corporation, considering the nature and severity of the disruptions.
❖ Hold that Amixent Corporation should be held liable for damages resulting from the termination of
the contract and they should not be absolved of liability due to the doctrine of frustration or
impossibility.
❖ Pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAYS.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
-SD-
Page | 20

Section-A (D-1) Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section-A (D-1) Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: D-1

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

THE CIVIL COURT OF HYDERABAD

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CASE NO. __ OF 2024

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 10

I. The Unforeseen Disruptions In The Production And Supply Chain Of Amixent

IV. Rehin Enterprises Acted Reasonably In Refusing To Entertain Modifications To The

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

The Contract Act, 1872, at §55. ............................................................................................................ 20

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

THIS MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS, AND

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

I. THE UNFORESEEN DISRUPTIONS IN THE PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN OF AMIXENT

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

obligations to Rehin Enterprises.

2.3 Amixent Corporation's lack of communication exacerbates difficulties, hindering

2.4 Rehin Enterprises diligently mitigated COVID-19 disruptions, contrasting Amixent

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

IV. REHIN ENTERPRISES ACTED REASONABLY IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN MODIFICATIONS

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

5.2 Allocation of Liability and Principles of Mitigation

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

All of which is respectfully submitted.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION MEMO PROJECT 2024

You might also like