Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A written submission on behalf of the petitioner, mr. Treitel, in a moot court competition before the district judge in delhi. The case involves a dispute between mr. Treitel, a distributor of spanners, and mr. Chitty, a manufacturer of spanners, regarding a contract agreement and a bonus payment. The facts of the case, the legal arguments, and the key questions to be addressed by the court. It provides a detailed analysis of the contractual obligations, the consideration, and the enforceability of the alleged variation to the agreement. The document also cites relevant legal precedents and statutes to support the petitioner's position. Overall, this document presents a comprehensive legal analysis of a complex contractual dispute and could be useful for students studying contract law, commercial law, or moot court competitions.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 9
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
5
Cause title ………………………………………………………….. List of abbreviations……………………………………………………… Cases…………………………………………………………………… Jurisdiction ………………………………………………………………. Facts of the case ………………………………………………………….. Charges, issues, facts of the case………………………………………………… Questions ……………………………………………………………………… WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO GET MAINTENANCE? SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................. 8 ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................9- PRAYER…................................................................................................................ 13
8
STATUTES:
WEBSITES: -
10
The Hon’ble District Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to hear the petition and adjudicate over the matter under the Section 2[e] of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Such Court shall have jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of the civil nature, except suits on proceedings. Both the parties shall accept the court’s decision as final and binding and execute in good faith. 5
13
The court appeal before two parties some points No consideration of provided by the promise to pay the amount as it lacked consideration under the agreement by mr. Treitel he used his best endeavours to sell as many spanners .The promise to pay for selling 100, the tool does not constitute or consider. He was merely doing what he was already contractually obliged to do. Any additional effort or resources deployed by Mr. Treitel, such as hiring more staff, still fall under his existing obligation to use "best endeavours." Therefore, these actions cannot be considered new or separate consideration for the promise of the bonus. Clause 3.1 of the Agreement clearly states that any variations must be agreed upon, set out in writing, and signed by both parties to be effective. The alleged variation discussed in the Forks and Beer Public House was not documented in writing or signed by both parties as required by this clause. Despite Mr. Chitty’s casual dismissal of the need to worry about the clause during their conversation, this does not negate the binding nature of Clause 3.1. Parties cannot simply waive such a clause informally without a clear, written agreement indicating mutual consent to disregard or amend the clause. Consideration: Mr. Treitel did not provide any new consideration beyond his existing contractual obligation to use "best endeavours" to sell spanners for Mr. Chitty. Therefore, there was no additional benefit to Mr. Chitty, making the promise unenforceable. Estoppel: Mr. Chitty is not estopped from relying on Clause 3.1 to assert that the variation to the Agreement was unenforceable. The clause explicitly requires any variations to be agreed upon in writing, and Mr. Chitty's casual dismissal of the clause during the New Year's Eve conversation does not override its legal effect. Therefore, the variation remains unenforceable.
14
1.Could Mr. Treitel's extensive efforts to promote Mr. Chitty's business and exceed the sales target be considered as providing additional consideration beyond his existing contractual obligations? 2.In light of Mr. Chitty's acknowledgment of the discussion regarding the bonus on New Year's Eve and his subsequent acceptance of Mr. Treitel's efforts to meet the sales target, is there an argument for promissory estoppel, preventing Mr. Chitty from relying on Clause 3. to invalidate the variation to the Agreement? 3.How does the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the requirement for consideration in this case align with established legal principles regarding contractual variations and the doctrine of consideration? 4.Are there any precedents or legal authorities that support Mr. Treitel's position regarding the enforceability of the variation to the Agreement, despite the lack of explicit consideration beyond his existing obligations?
