Download Memorial for repondent and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Team Code: 11
Moot Court memorial
BEFRORE
THE DISTRICT COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE –VILLUPURAM
R. D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. …… Plaintiff
V.
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. …… Defendant
CIVIL CASE …………….OF 2017
UNDER SECTION 2(4) 0F THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENT
1- Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………..................................................... 3 LIST OFABBREVIATION…………………………………………………………….. 4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………...……………………………………… 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….. 6- STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………. 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… 9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………..…… 10- PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2- Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OFABBREVIATION
ICA - Indian Contract Act, 1872 SCC - Supreme Court Cases C.P.C .- Civil Procedure Code SC - Supreme Court Sec .- Section
4- Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Hon‘ble Court under section
2(4) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 2 (4) : "district" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of
original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court"), and includes the local limits of the
ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.
5- Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 3rd march 2017, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the remaining clothes to R.D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. I. THE PROCEEDINGS AND BACKGROUNDS On 4th march a notice was sent to Sapatrangi pvt. Ltd., to exchange the low quality clothes. The notice was acknowledged and accepted by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. However, no exchange took place. On 20th march second notice was sent, which was neither acknowledged nor replied. R.D Parmanandka pvt. Ltd. Filed a suit against Sapatrangi Pvt Ltd and claims Rs. 1,50,000 for breach of contract. Saptrangi Pvt Ltd. contended that it was not bound to pay the amount claimed in the suit because the clothes were of good quality.
7- Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM SPATRANGI PVT.
LTD?
2. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS DISCHARGED WITH DUE PERFORMANCE OR
NOT?
8-Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1 .WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE SEEKING CLAIM FROM SPATRANGI PVT. LTD?
clothes, after taking delivery R.D. Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd. looses a profitable contract with its large booking agents which resulted in a significant down in the demand for their kids wear garments. it was the only significant reason for the the plaintiff‘s company has leads to the great lose in the business and there are no another special damages that the plaintiff can seek through the defendant. It is humbly submitted that the clothes supplied were of good quality. Since, the company Sapatangi Pvt. Ltd was a large manufacturer of kids wear garments and they have the good reputation and good business profile and they would not specifically change their quality standards for production of certain lot of garments only because they are meant to be supplied to the plaintiff‘s company. Why would a company spoil its own reputation by such an activity even when it is already facing difficulties on grounds of number of legal actions. And the notice send by the plaintiff was fully false and fabricated one. It is humbly submitted that it is the buyers reponsibility to be cautious no complaint by the plaintiff in the course of the delivery and there after 12 hours the plaintiff send the legal notice to the defendant i.e., the doctrine of caveat emptor. The legal maxim Caveat Emptor or ―”let the buyer beware” means that the buyer relies on his skill and judgment when he purchases. It does not mean that the buyer should ‘take a chance’, but it means he should ‘take care’. This Maxim leads to the presumption that a buyer relies on his quality of skill and judgment when he purchases a good as he has the opportunity to examine the good before purchasing it and the seller would not be responsible for any default in the bought good. This rule is not absolute and is limited to some exceptions but its exception is not applicable in the present case.
10-Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
2. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted that the contract entered into by the parties Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. and R D for the purchase of kids wear garments.
CONSIDERATION: The contract price was Rs. 6,00,000 and both parties agree upon a payment schedule. DATE OF DELIVERY : 1 January 2017 SCHEDULE AS TO PAYMENT AND DELIVERY : R.D Parmanandka Pvt.Ltd., agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000 partially upon delivery of the kids wear clothes on 1st January 2017 and a final payment of Rs. 2,00,000 on 1st march, 2017. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT: The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the delivery of the kids cloths on consideration of Rs.60000 /- at after the delivery of the kids cloths the contract was discharged and the contract has been ended.” Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd delivered the garments to R.D Parmanandka Pvt Ltd. on the agreed date i.e 1st January 2017 as per the contract. It is pertinent to mention that the delivery of clothes as on 3rd march 2017 does not form part of the original contract as per the facts of the case as delivery was due and accordingly made on 1st january 2017. Whereas, only the payment was to be made in part. Accordingly with reference section 62 of The Indian Contract Act,1872 , In the facts and circumstances of the present case the delivery of remaining clothes as on 3rd march, 2017 would amount to a material alteration of the terms of contract which would further render the contract void.
11-Memorial on behalf of the defendant
Team Code: 11
PRAYER
Therefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that: There has been no breach of contract.
