T M05

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW

BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT

IN THE MATTER OF

VENUS CREATIONS
PETITIONER

v.

GENTELMAN’S TAILORING CO. PVT. LTD.

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7

4. Statement of Facts 8

5. Issues Raised 9

6. Summary of Arguments 10-11

12-20
7. Arguments Advanced

8. 21
PRAYER

2
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. EXPANSION
ABBREVIATIONS

1. LTD. Limited

2. PVT. Private

3. V. Versus

4. & And

7. Sec Section

8. Art. Article

9. Co. Company

10. SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble
11. Honorable

AIR All India Report

12.

U/S Under Section

13.

UOI Union of India

14.

ICA Indian Contract Act

15.

3
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S. CASES CITATION
N
O.
1. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
(1903) ILR 30
Cal 539 (PC)

2. Salima Jabeen v. National Insurance Co. Ltd A.I.R. 1999

J&K 110
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Ajmer Singh & Anr’ A.I..R.
1999 SC
3027
4. State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators 1965
AIR 17

5. 1919) 1 K..B. 486

Thornettand & Fehr v. Beers and Sons

6. Commissioner of Customs v. Aafloat Textiles AIR

2009 SC
(SUPP)
2320
7 Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor 1959 AIR
1262
8 (1903) 2
Krell v. Henry KB 740

9
Markapur Municipality v. Dodda Ramireddi AIR 1972 AP 299

10. (1964 1
Adamson v. Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust WLR 1157)

11. Har Prasad Chaubey v. Union of India AIR

1973 SC
2380

12. U.T.I. v. R.K. Shukla AIR 2005 SC

3528

4
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

S.NO. BOOKS

1. RK Bangia, Indian Contract I

2. RK Bangia, Sale of Goods Act

3. A. Rammiya Commentary , Sale of goods act

S. NO. STATUES
1. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930

5
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2. INDIAN KANOON https://indiankanoon.org/
3. LAW BHOOMI https://lawbhoomi.com/
4. LEGAL SERVICE INDIA https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
5. SCC ONLINE https://www.scconline.com/
6. MANUPATRA https://www.manupatrafast.com/

S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE

1. AIR ONLINE (ALL INDIAN REPORTER) https://www.aironline.in/

6
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached The HON’BLE CIVIL COURT under Sec 9 1of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.

1
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.Previous

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

1[Explanation I].—
A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may
depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
2[Explanation II].—
For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or
whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.]

7
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Venus Creations, a high-end women's fashion company, aimed to diversify

into men's formal attire.

1. Negotiated with Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd., a renowned men's formal
wear manufacturer, for garment purchase.
2.
3. Contract executed for Rs. 8,00,000 with payment schedule: Rs. 5,00,000 on
delivery (1st June 2019), Rs. 3,00,000 on 1st August 2019.
4.
4. Garments delivered on 1st June 2019, but Venus Creations faced financial
strain due to supplier bankruptcy.

5. Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. in financial difficulty agreed to accept Rs.
1,00,000 in full settlement.
6.
6. Remaining garments delivered on 3rd August 2019, found to be subpar on
inspection.

7. Venus Creations sent notices demanding exchange (4th and 20th August
2019), but no resolution occurred.

8. Legal action initiated by Venus Creations seeking Rs. 2,00,000 in damages for
breach of contract.

9. Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. contends that the garments met agreed-
upon quality standards, denying breach of contract.

8
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

I.
WHEATHER THE ACCEPTANCE O F A SUM DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF
STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT WAS VALID, AND IF SO, WHAT EFFEVT IT
HAD ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT?
II.
WHETHER THE FAILURE TO EXCHANGE THE SUBPAR QUALITY
GARMENTS CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY UNDER SECTION 16 OF SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930?

III.
WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF

CONTRACT APPLIES DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO

THE DECLINE IN DEMAND FOR VENUS CRATIONS PRODUCT AND
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY GENTLEMAN’S TAILORING CO. PVT.
LTD?

IV.
WHETHER THE NOTICES SENT BY VENUS CRATIONS
CONSTITUTE VALID COMMUNICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872

9
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the acceptance of a sum different from that stipulated in the

contract was valid, and if so, what effect it had on the original contract?

It is most humbly Submitted that The acceptance of the different sum from the stipulated in
the contract was valid under the principle of accord and satisfaction. The parties mutually
agreed to accept Rs. 1,00,000 in full settlement of debt. due to the financial strain faced by
Venus Creations and financial difficulties faced by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.
This agreement altered the terms of the original contract. As a result of alteration under
Section 62, the original contract was discharged, and a new agreement was formed between
parties regarding the payment amount. The Promisee can remit or dispense with the
performance of contract without any consideration. He may forego his claim or may agree
to a smaller amount in full satisfaction of full amount, as mentioned under section 63 of
The Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the acceptance of sum difference from that
stipulated in the contract was valid

2. Whether r the failure to exchange the subpar quality garments constitutes a

breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Section 16 of the Sale

of Goods Act, 1930?

The quality of garments was reasonable, and they were fit for the ordinary
purposes for which such garments are used. There was no breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability under section 16 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as the
garments met the agreed upon standards and were fit for their intended purpose.
Therefore, the defendant contends that the Venus Creations claim for damages
is unfounded. Moreover, the maxim caveat emptor, under section 16 of Sale of
Goods Act, 1930, means ‘buyer beware’. According to this rule, the buyer
himself should be careful while purchasing the goods and he himself should
ascertain that the goods suit his purpose. There are 2 exceptions to the rule of
caveat emptor, but none of them applies to this situation, as Gentleman's
Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. supplied the garments of merchantable quality

10
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3. Whether the doctrine of frustration of contract applies due to unforeseen

circumstances leading to the decline in demand for Venus Creations' products and

financial difficulties faced by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd?

It is most humbly submitted that The frustration of contract applies due to unforeseen
circumstances such as decline in demand for Venus Creations products and financial
conditions faced by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. The circumstances made it
impossible or impractical for both the parties to fulfil their obligations under the contract,
leading to change in those obligations. Both parties mutually agreed to alter the terms of
contract, demonstrating their willingness to cooperate. Therefore, the doctrine of frustration
under section 56 applies here as the performance becomes impossible because of a
supervening event.

4. Whether the notices sent by Venus Creations constitute valid communication

under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

It is most humbly submitted that The notices sent by Venus Creations do not constitute valid
communication under section 4 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872. The notices lacked
specificity regarding the alleged breach of contract. Additionally, the mere acknowledgement
of receipt by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. Does not imply acceptance of Venus
Creations claims or admission of fault. Furthermore, the absence of a response to the second
notice cannot be constricted as an acknowledgement of breach, as it could be due to various
reasons such as ongoing negotiations or legal device. Without clear evidence demonstrating
that the notices fulfilled the legal requirements for valid communication, Venus Creations
claims regarding breach of contract lack merit.

11
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE O F A SUM DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF STIPULATED

IN THE CONTRACT WAS VALID, AND IF SO, WHAT EFFEVT IT HAD ON THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT?
EFFECT IT HAD ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT?

It is Humbly submitted before Hon’ble Court That the foundation of the argument is rooted in the
1
Indian Contract Act, which governs the formation and enforcement of contracts in India. Under
the Indian Contract Act, Section 2(h) defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by law. It
further states that an agreement becomes a contract when it is made with the intention to create
legal relations, is supported by consideration, and is not expressly declared to be void. In the
present case, the original contract between the parties involved the payment of a specific sum of
money for the performance of certain obligations.

However, it is essential to note that under Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, acceptance of a
sum different from that stipulated in the contract can still be considered valid if both parties enter
into a subsequent agreement to modify the terms of the original contract. This principle is based
on the concept of consensus ad idem, which requires mutual assent to the terms of the contract.

In the case of 2Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose , the Privy Council held that any
agreement to alter the terms of a contract must be supported by fresh consideration. Therefore, if
the acceptance of a different sum was accompanied by additional consideration or a new
agreement between the parties, it would be deemed valid and binding under the law.

Furthermore, Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the doctrine of accord and
satisfaction, which allows parties to discharge their contractual obligations by entering into a new
agreement. If the acceptance of a different sum was intended as a compromise or settlement of the
original contract, it would operate as an accord and satisfaction, thereby extinguishing the
previous obligations of the parties.

1. Indian Contract Act , 1872

2. (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

12
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The agreement to accept Rs. 1,00,000 in full settlement of remaining Rs. 3,00,000 owned by Venus
Creations was reached through mutual agreement between both parties. This mutual assent is a
foundational principle of contract law, indicating that both parties understood and willingly accepted
the terms of accord Venus Creations provided the payment of Rs. 1,00,000 while Gentleman's
Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd agreed to forego their right to claim the remaining Rs. 3,00,000 owed under
the original contract. This exchange of promises constitutes valid consideration, which is essential
for the formation of a legally binding contract. Both the parties acted in the good faith throughout
the negotiation and acceptance of the lesser sum. Both parties were motivated by the desire to find a
mutually acceptable solution to the financial strain faced by Venus Creations and financial
difficulties experienced by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. Once the new agreement was
performed the original contact was considered fulfilled. The acceptance of the lesser sum in full
settle effectively discharged the original contractual obligation under section 63 of The Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

-In the case of 3United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Ajmer Singh & Anr, Supreme Court
of India affirmed the principle of accord and satisfaction as a valid means of discharging
contractual obligations. The SC held that the acceptance of lesser sum by defendant in full
satisfaction of the claim constituted valid accord and satisfaction.

In 4Salima Jabeen v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant entered into a contract of
insurance of her property against fire, with the respondent company. The insured sum was Rs.
23 lacs. Her property was set on fire by the militants causing substantial damage to the
property. The assessment of damages was made by two surveyors. The appellant accepted the
compensation of Rs. 6,61,772 by way of full and final satisfaction of her claim on the basis of
report submitted by the second surveyor. The said amount was paid by the insurance
company and received by the appellant. It was held that by accepting the said amount of
compensation and agreeing not to make any further claim, the appellant has released the
insurance company from contractual obligations. She, therefore, was not entitled to claim any
further compensation from the insurance company.
Therefore, the acceptance of a sum different from that stipulated in the contract was valid and
legally binding both parties entitled into agreement willingly with the valid consideration and
acted in the good faith throughout the transaction. As such the accord and satisfaction
effectively discharged the original contractual obligation.

3. A.I..R. 1999 SC 3027

4. A.I.R. 1999 J&K 110

13
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In conclusion, the acceptance of a sum different from that stipulated in the original contract
can be valid under the Indian Contract Act if it is supported by fresh consideration or forms
part of a new agreement between the parties. The effect it has on the original contract would
depend on the intentions of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the modification of
the terms.

Therefore, It is respectfully submitted before court that the acceptance of a different sum in
this case was valid and had the effect of modifying the original contract in accordance with
the law.

14
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WHETHER THE FAILURE TO EXCHANGE THE SUBPAR QUALITY

GARMENTS CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY UNDER SECTION 16 OF SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that The plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to
exchange subpar quality garments and therefore breached the implied warranty of merchantability. However,
upon examination of the facts and relevant laws, it is evident that the defendant did not breach any implied
warranties. The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides specific provisions regarding implied warranties of quality
in a contract for the sale of goods. Section 16 of the Act states that there is an implied condition that goods
sold must be of merchantable quality. This means that the goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for
which they are intended, be of average quality, and be free from any defects that render them unusable. In the
present case, the defendant did sell garments to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff claims that the garments were of
subpar quality. However, it is crucial to note that the Act does not define what constitutes "subpar quality."
The Act only requires that the goods be of average quality and fit for their ordinary purposes. The defendant
did not explicitly guarantee a specific level of quality beyond what is reasonable to expect from garments of
that nature. Furthermore, the Act also states that the implied warranty of merchantability can be excluded or
modified by agreement between the parties. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant
made any specific representations or guarantees regarding the quality of the garments beyond what is
reasonable to expect. Therefore, the defendant did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability as
provided under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

The failure to exchange the subpar garments does not constitute a breach of implied warranty of
merchantability under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The defendant, Gentleman's Tailoring Co.
Pvt. Ltd., contends that the garments delivered to Venus Creations met the agreed-upon quality standards at
the time of delivery. The garments were produced in accordance with industry norms and practices, and there
was no explicit agreement regarding a specific level of quality beyond what is customary for such garments.
Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, implies a warranty of merchantability in every contract for the
sale of goods. This warranty ensures that goods sold by a merchant are reasonably fit for the ordinary
purpose for which such goods are used. However, it is important to note that this warranty is not absolute and
does not require goods to be of perfect quality or free from all defects.

However, the quality of the garments delivered was in line with industry standards and common practice for
similar products. As such, they were suitable for their intended purpose and fulfilled the implied warranty of
merchantability under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Venus Creations had the opportunity to
inspect the garments upon delivery. If they found any defects or deviations from their expectations, they
could have raised concerns or rejected the goods at that time. The failure to do so suggests that the garments
were initially deemed acceptable, and any subsequent dissatisfaction may not necessarily indicate a breach of
implied warranty. Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. acted in good faith throughout the transaction. Any
alleged discrepancies in the quality of the garments were unintentional and not indicative of a deliberate
breach of warranty.

Therefore, the failure to exchange the subpar garments does not constitute a breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The garments delivered met industry
standards and were suitable for their intended purpose, fulfilling the requirements of the implied warranty.

15
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

1
State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the implied warranty of merchantability does not require
goods to be of perfect quality or free from all defects. Instead, it ensures that goods are reasonably fit for the
ordinary purpose for which they are used. The Court emphasized that the standard of merchantability is based
on what is customary and reasonable in the trade or industry.

In 2Thornettand & Fehr v. Beers and Sons, there was a sale of a number of barrels and vegetable
glue. The buyers having an opportunity to examine the barrels from outside for want of time. The buyers
subsequently found that the glue was not of merchantable quality and this defect could have been discovered
if the barrels had been examined properly from inside. In an action by the buyers for the damages for breach
of implied condition as to merchantable quality by the sellers, it was held that since the buyers had examined
the gods and defect in the goods was a patent one, they were not entitled to sue the sellers for the same.

In 3Commissioner of Customs v. Aafloat Textiles , the buyer had purchased the gold under a
Special Import License (SIL). However, it was discovered that the SIL had been forged and subsequently, a
penalty was imposed on the buyer for purchasing gold under an invalid and forged SIL.

The buyer pleaded that he did not have knowledge of the forged SIL. The revenue department, on the other
hand, pleaded that the principle of caveat emptor applies to the present case. The vendor is under no
obligation to inform the consumer of any latent defect on his own. The only obligation on the part of the
seller is that if the consumer makes an enquiry as to a potential defect in the product, then he cannot falsely
represent to the consumer that such defects do not exist. The buyer is expected to be cautious while making
the purchase as he bears the risk of any possible defect and not the seller.

Applying the principle of caveat emptor, the Supreme Court of India held that the buyer was under a duty to
inquire into the genuineness of the SIL before making the purchase, If the buyer would have had exercised
proper and due diligence, then he would have found out that the SIL was forged. In the absence of such due
diligence, the buyer would be deemed to have actual and constructive knowledge of the defect in the gold
purchase.

Additionally, it is essential to consider the principle of caveat emptor, which means "let the buyer beware."
This principle places the responsibility on the buyer to inspect the goods before purchase and ensure that they
meet their requirements. In this case, the plaintiff had the opportunity to examine the garments before
purchasing them and could have raised any concerns regarding the quality at that time.

In conclusion, the defendant did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability under Section 16 of the
Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The goods sold were of average quality and fit for their ordinary purposes, and the
defendant did not make any specific guarantees regarding the quality of the garments. Therefore, we
respectfully request that the court dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

__________________________
1. 1965 AIR 17
2. (1919) 1 K..B. 486
3. AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 2320

16
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT APPLIES DUE

TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE DECLINE IN
DEMAND FOR VENUS CRATIONS PRODUCT AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES
FACED BY GENTLEMAN’S TAILORING CO. PVT. LTD?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract applies in
the case at hand due to unforeseen circumstances leading to a decline in demand for Venus Creations
products and the financial difficulties faced by our client. Under the Indian Contract Act, Section 56
addresses the Doctrine of Frustration, which states that a contract becomes void when an unforeseen
event occurs that renders the performance of the contract impossible or unlawful. In the present case,
it is evident that unforeseen circumstances have arisen, leading to the frustration of the contract
between Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Venus Creations. The first unforeseen
circumstance that has led to the decline in demand for Venus Creations products is the changing
market dynamics. The fashion industry is known for its volatility, with consumer preferences
constantly shifting. In this case, there has been a significant decline in demand for Venus Creations
products due to changing trends, which was beyond the control of Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt.
Ltd. Furthermore, financial difficulties faced by Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. have also
contributed to the frustration of the contract. The financial constraints faced by our client have made
it increasingly difficult for them to fulfill their obligations under the contract with Venus Creations.
These financial difficulties were unforeseen at the time the contract was entered into and have made
it impossible for Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. to continue the business relationship with
Venus Creations. It is important to note that the Doctrine of Frustration seeks to mitigate the harsh
consequences that may arise when unforeseen events make it impossible for parties to perform their
contractual obligations. In this case, the unforeseen circumstances have significantly impacted
Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.'s ability to fulfill their obligations under the contract with Venus
Creations

The doctrine of frustration of contract may indeed apply due to unforeseen circumstances leading to
the decline in demand for Venus Creations products and the financial difficulties faced by
Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. Both parties encountered unforeseen circumstances that
significantly affected their ability to fulfil their contractual obligations. Venus Creations experienced
a decline in demand for its products due to the bankruptcy of a key supplier, while Gentleman's
Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. faced financial difficulties due to ongoing legal disputes. These unforeseen
circumstances had a direct impact on the performance of the contract. Venus Creations' decline in
demand affected its ability to pay the full contract price, while Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.'s
financial difficulties made it challenging for them to deliver the garments as per the agreed schedule.
The decline in demand for Venus Creations' products may be considered a frustration of the purpose
of the contract. The original purpose of the contract was to supply garments to meet Venus
Creations' business needs.

17
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

However, with the decline in demand, the need for the garments diminished, thereby frustrating the
purpose of the contract. The financial difficulties faced by Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. may
render performance of the contract impracticable. If the party's inability to perform their obligations
stems from circumstances beyond their control and not due to their fault or negligence, the doctrine
of frustration may apply to excuse non-performance. Both parties made good faith efforts to address
the challenges posed by the unforeseen circumstances. For example, Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt.
Ltd. agreed to accept a lesser sum in full settlement of the remaining debt, demonstrating a
willingness to accommodate Venus Creations' financial strain. The doctrine of frustration of contract
applies due to the unforeseen circumstances that affected both parties' ability to perform their
contractual obligations.
In case of 1Krell v. Henry, the defendant agreed to hire the plaintiff's flat for June 26 and 27, 1902,
the days on which the coronation procession of Edward VII was to pass along a particular road. The
defendent's purpose for hiring the flat on the specified dates was to have a view of the coronation
procession. The defendant paid some amount by way of rent in advance and promised to pay the
balance subsequently. Due to the King's illness, the procession was cancelled. On the defendent's
refusing to pay the balance of the agreed rent, the plaintiff sued him for the same. It was observed
that viewing of the procession was the foundation of the contract, and by the cancellation of the
procession, the purpose of the contract could no longer be achieved, and as such, the parties were
discharged from their further obligations. Consequently, the plaintiff was not held entitled to recover
the balance of the agreed rent.
In 2Markapur Municipality v. Dodda Ramireddi, the plaintiff, a municipal authority auctioned the
right to collect pig dung in municipal authority auctioned the right to collect pig dung in municipal
area. the defendent made the highest bid of Rs. 7,050 to get this right. He paid a part of this amount
by the way of advance. The plaintiff Municipal Authority then filed a suit against the defendent to
recover the balance of Rs. 5,504 but the defendent refused to pay the same on the ground that the
dung was collected by the pig owners while they followed the pigs in the streets, and nothing was
left for defendent. It was found that the pig owners had the right to collect the dung, and this was not
the property of the municipality. It was held that since the dung did not belong to the municipality,
they had no right to auction it or charge anything for it. The contract was frustrated as no dung was
left for the collection of the defendent, and, therefore, the defendent was not liable to pay the balance
of the amount.
In 3Har Prasad Chaubey v. Union of India, the appellant was the highest bidder for slack coal
belonging to the respondents' railways. Full payment made by the appellant for the same. When he
applied for the wagons for transporting coal to Firozabad, Coal Commissioner was refused the
same on the ground that the coal was meant to be consumed locally only. For the refund of the
amount paid by him appellant then filed a suit. Decision was that the Coal commissioner refusal to
allow the movement of the coal to Firozabad, in spite of fact that at the time of auction that no such
condition was there, had frustrated the contract.

1. (1903) 2 KB 740
2. AIR 1972 AP 299
3. AIR 1973 SC 2380

18
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In conclusion, the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract clearly applies in the present case due to the
unforeseen circumstances that have led to the decline in demand for Venus Creations products and
the financial difficulties faced by Gentleman’s Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Therefore, It is respectfully requested to this hon’ble court to consider these arguments and rule in
Favor of the Defendant.

19
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WHETHER THE NOTICES SENT BY VENUS CRATIONS CONSTITUTE

VALID COMMUNICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT,1872?
,

It is humbly Submitted before the court that the The key question at hand is whether these
notices constitute valid communication under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, outlines the requirements for communication of
proposals, acceptance, and revocation. It states that the communication of a proposal is
complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. Similarly,
communication of acceptance is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. It
is essential for the communication to be understood by both parties involved in the contract.
In the case at hand, Venus Creations has sent notices to the defendant regarding certain terms
and conditions of a contract. The question arises whether these notices fulfill the requirements
set forth in Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act. First and foremost, it is important to
establish whether the notices were effectively communicated to the defendant. The defendant
must have received the notices and understood their contents in order for them to be
considered valid communication. If the defendant was unaware of the notices or did not
understand their implications, then they cannot be deemed as valid communication under the
Indian Contract Act. Furthermore, the notices sent by Venus Creations must also be clear and
unambiguous in order to be considered valid communication. If the notices were vague or
misleading in any way, then they cannot be deemed as effective communication under the
Indian Contract Act.
Clarity and understanding are essential elements for effective communication of proposals
and terms in a contract. Moreover, it is important to consider whether the notices sent by
Venus Creations were in compliance with any specific requirements outlined in the contract
between the parties. If there were specific provisions regarding communication methods or
timelines in the contract, then the notices must adhere to those requirements in order to be
considered valid.

The notices sent by Venus Creations may lack clarity and specificity regarding the alleged
breach of contract. Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, requires communication to be
clear and definite in expressing the intention of the party sending the notice. If the notices fail
to clearly articulate the specific breach of contract or the desired remedy, they may not meet
the requirements of valid communication. While Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.
acknowledged receipt of the notices, mere acknowledgment does not necessarily imply
acceptance or agreement with the claims made by Venus Creations. Without a clear response
indicating acceptance or rejection of the claims raised in the notices, it may be argued that the
communication was incomplete and did not effectively convey Venus Creations' intentions.
Venus Creations did not engage in good faith negotiations following the receipt of
acknowledgment from Gentleman's Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd. Section 4 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872, requires parties to act in good faith and with the intention to communicate
effectively to resolve disputes.

20
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In the case of 1Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor the Supreme Court of
India emphasized the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in contractual
matters. The Court held that for a communication to be effective in altering the terms of a
contract or notifying the other party of a breach, it must be clear, specific, and unequivocal.
Vague or ambiguous communication may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
valid communication under contract law.
2
Adamson v. Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust: IN this case, the court emphasised that
notices must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to effectively communicate the intentions
of the party sending the notice. Vague or ambiguous notices may not be considered valid
under contract law.
In 3U.T.I. v. R.K. Shukla, cheques sent by the U.T.I. by registered post, did not reach the
respondent. The Court ruled that in the absence of any contract/ request from the payee, mere
posting would not amount to payment.
In conclusion, the validity of the notices sent by Venus Creations hinges on whether they
fulfill the requirements set forth in Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
communication must have been effectively conveyed to the defendant, clear and
unambiguous, and in compliance with any specific provisions in the contract. As these
criteria are not met, then the notices cannot be considered valid communication under the
Indian Contract Act.

_____

_____________
1.1959 AIR 1262
2. (1964 1 WLR 1157)
3. AIR 2005 SC 3528

21
 RCL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe be pleased to adjudge, hold
and declare that:

1. that the acceptance of a different sum in this case was valid and had the effect
of modifying the original contract in accordance with the law.

2. The goods sold were of average quality and fit for their ordinary purposes,
and the defendant did not make any specific guarantees regarding the quality
of the garments. Therefore, we respectfully request that the court dismiss the
plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

3. the Doctrine of Frustration of Contract clearly applies in the present case due
to the unforeseen circumstances that have led to the decline in demand for
Venus Creations products and the financial difficulties faced by Gentleman’s
Tailoring Co. Pvt. Ltd.

4. Venus Creations hinges on whether they fulfill the requirements

set forth in Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
communication must have been effectively conveyed to the
defendant, clear and unambiguous, and in compliance with any
specific provisions in the contract. As these criteria are not met,
then the notices cannot be considered valid communication under
the Indian Contract Act.

And/or

The Petitioner additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may pass any order as it
deems fit int the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.

And for this the Respondent shall duty bound, ever pray

Respectfully submitted by,

(Counsel(s) for the Respondent )

22
11TH EDITION RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

23