Memorial Moot Respondent

T
ACADEMIC MOOT COURT COMPETITION - II, 2015
IN THE HONBLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

AT
..........
MR. AJAY (MINOR, AGE 12 YEARS)

THROUGH
MR. RAJAN, NATURAL GUARDIAN

PETITIONER
V.
RELICOP PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD.

RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
THE TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
The Table of Contents..................................................................................2

The Index of Authorities....................................................................................I
list of abbreviations.........................................................................................II
The Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................IV
The Statement of Issues..................................................................................V
The Summary of Arguments............................................................................VI
The Arguments Advanced................................................................................1
A. That the petitioner, Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract................................1
That Mr. Ajay is a minor..............................................................................1
Minors Competence to Contract.................................................................2
B.
That no quasi-contractual relation has been created between the petitioner,
Mr. Ajay and the respondent, relicop Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd............................3
C.
That Doctor Gupta was not aware of terms and conditions prescribed in the
advertisement..............................................................................................4
Act done in ignorance of proposal...............................................................5
No condition was fulfilled to constitute a contact under section 8, Indian Contract
Act, 1872.................................................................................................7
D. That Mr. Rajan did not enter into a contract on behalf of Ajay..........................8
Extent of power of guardian to enter into contract on behalf of a minor.............8
Natural Guardian of Hindu minor.................................................................8
Contract of Necessity................................................................................9
If minor has reaped any Benefit................................................................10
Agreement in sub-silentio.........................................................................10
E.
That proposal was not accepted and parties did not enter into a valid
contract....................................................................................................10
That a general offer was made by the respondent.......................................11
No acceptance made by the Petitioner.......................................................11
The Prayer..................................................................................................13
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1. THE HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956.
2. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
3. THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.
DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (8th eD. 2001).
2. P. RAMANATHA AIYER, THE LAW LEXICON (2ND ED. 2004).
3. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, (2nd ed. 2009).
4. WEBSTERS NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1926).
WEBSITES
1. www.judis.nic.in.
2. www.manupatra.com.
3. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com.
BOOKS
1. Aiyer, Ramanatha, P., The Law Lexicon, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Wadhwa and
Company (2004).
2. H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, 9th Edition, 2000, Wastern Law House, New
Delhi.
3. Mallick, Indian Contract Act, 2008, Kamal Law House, Kolkata.
4. Sanjiva Rows Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Tenders, 2004,
Delhi Law House, Delhi.
5. T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, 2nd Edition, 2009,
Universal Law Publications, New Delhi.
TABLE OF CASES
Bloom v. America Swiss Watch Co (1915) App. Div. 100..04
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893) 1 Q.B. 256 at 26808
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 1
Hari v. Sew AIR 1949 Assam 57...07
Kashiba v. Shripat (1894) 19 Bom 697....01
Kedar Das Mohta v. Nand Lal Poddar AIR 1971 Pat 253 p. 255-256....08
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 All.L.J. 489.05
Latcharao v. Viswanadham , AIR 1956 AP.....02
Peters v. Flemings (1840) 6 M&W 42...07
Peters v. Flemings (1840) 6 M&W, 42..03
R. V. Clerk, (1927) 40 CLR.04
Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit AIR 1960 Cal 65.......02
Rajubala Desi v. Nidhurama Pandit AIR 1960 Cal 65.07

Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, (2008), 8 SCC 205......03
Williams v. Carwardine (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621.......05
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR
Ed.
Hon'ble
Ors
p.
PLJR
SC
SCC
SCR
Sec.
v./vs.
&
All India Reporter

Edition
Honourable
Others
Page No.
Patna Law Journal Reports
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Section
Versus
And
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. A reward of INR 15000 was announced by Relicop Pharmaceutical Co.

Ltd. in advertisement in Tribune dated 15 th June, 2015 to anyone who
contracts H1N1 flu after having their pills as per directions printed on the
box.
2. Mr. Rajan saw the advertisement and believed the accuracy of statement
made. His son, having fever, took those pills as per the prescription of their
family doctor, Dr. Gupta, who was unaware of the advertisement.
3. Despite
this,
Ajay
contracted
H1N1
flu
on
27 th
July
2015.
4. Mr. Rajan, on behalf of his son claimed INR 15000 from the Company, as
promised by them in advertisement.
5. The Company denied the amount saying that there was never a contract
between Mr. Ajay and the Company.
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Council on behalf of the Respondent, hereby submits his written statement in
the suit for recovery. The Council most humbly and respectfully, submits that this
Honble Court has the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate
this matter.
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A.
That Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract.
B.
That no quasi-contractual relation has been created between Mr. Ajay and
Relicop Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd.
C.
That Doctor Gupta was not aware of terms and conditions prescribed in the
advertisement.
D.
That Mr. Rajan did not enter into a contract on behalf of Ajay
E.
That proposal was not accepted and parties did not enter into a valid contract.
THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A.
That the petitioner Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract.
The council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits
before this honble court that Mr. Ajay, 12 years old is a minor and thus, not
competent to contract as per the provisions of section 10, 11 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. Thus, a contract entered by him is void ab initio and he is not entitled to
any benefit from such contract.
B.
That no quasi-contractual relation has been created between the

petitioner Mr. Ajay and the respondent Relicop Pharmaceuticals Co.
Ltd.
before this honble court that for a quasi contractual relation to be established, some
necessities have to be supplied by a person to a minor. In such a case, such person
can obtain repayment only from the property of such minor. However, in the instant
case, the minor is alleging to have entered into a contract with the respondent
Company and is demanding the Company to pay him INR 15000 as per the
agreement. Thus, the council on behalf of the respondent most humbly submits that
no quasi contract has been created between the petitioner and the respondent
company.
C.
That Doctor Gupta was not aware of terms and conditions prescribed
in the advertisement.
before this honble court that the doctor was ignorant of the terms and conditions
prescribed in the advertisement by the respondent company. Mere performance of
the conditions in absence of knowledge of the offer is not considered as an act in
exchange of the offer. Thus, provisions of section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
were not fulfilled. Hence, no contract was entered between the petitioner and the
respondent.
D.
That Mr. Rajan did not enter into a contract on behalf of Ajay.
before this honble court that a guardian can enter into a contract on behalf of a
minor provided the minor reaps out some benefit from such contact or in order to
supply the minor with necessities suited to his condition in life. Further, Mr. Rajan
was merely aware of the general offer. He did not show any positive conduct in order
to communicate his acceptance towards the offer. Thus, he did not enter into a
contract with the respondent company on behalf of his minor son.
E.
That proposal was not accepted and parties did not enter into a valid
contract.
before this honble court that a general offer was made by the respondent company
to the world at large. The same could be accepted either expressly or impliedly by
performing any of the conditions thereof. However, no acceptance was made by the
petitioner as he did not consume the pills as per the directions laid down by the
respondent company. Rather, the pills were consumed as per the directions of Dr.
Gupta, their family doctor. Hence, the council on behalf of the respondent most
humbly submits that the proposal was never accepted and thus, the parties never
entered into a contract.
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. THAT THE PETITIONER, MR. AJAY IS NOT COMPETENT TO CONTRACT.
The council on behalf of the Respondent most humbly submits before this
Honourable Court that Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract as per the provisions of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For an agreement to be a contract, provisions of
section 10, Indian Contract act, 18721, must be fulfilled.
For an agreement to be a contract:
-
Parties should be competent to contract

There must be free consent of parties
There should be lawful consideration
There should be lawful object
It should not be expressly declared to be void
Arguendo, the council on behalf of the Respondent must humbly submits before this
honble court that as Mr. Ajay is a minor, he has not consented to any contract and
the agreement is not for to supply necessities to the minor, thus it is not a valid
contract.
THAT MR. AJAY IS A MINOR.
before this honble court that Mr. Ajay, being of the age of 12 years, is a minor and
thus not competent to contract under the Indian Contract act, 1872.
1 When agreements are contracts:All agreements are contracts if they are

made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to
be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby
expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in
presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERSPAGE 1
DETERMINING MAJORITY
Age of majority, according to section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 2 shall be
determined according to law to which the person is subject. Therefore, if there is a
difference between provisions of Indian Majority Act, 1875 and those of personal law
to which the person is subject, his personal law will prevail and over-ride those of
Indian Majority Act, 1875.3
In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat4 the honourable court dealt with the case of a 16
year old Hindu widow. It was held that her capacity to contract shall be regulated by
Indian Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her domicile and she being a minor was
not liable under the bond.5
AGE OF MAJORITY UNDER THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the Indian
majority Act, 18756 provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age of
majority when he completes the age of 18 years.
2 Who are competent to contract Every person is competent to contract who

is of age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of
sound mind and is not disqualified form contracting by any law to which he is
subject.
3 H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, p. 231.

4 (1894) 19 Bom 697
5 Sanjiva Rows Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.
6 Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875 Age of majority of persons domiciled in India
1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing
the age of eighteen years and not before.
2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be
included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the
beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.
Thus, the council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully presents
before this honble court that as Mr. Ajay is of 12 years, he is a minor and thus
incompetent to contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
MINORS COMPETENCE TO CONTRACT
before this honble court that a minor is incompetent to enter into a contact and any
contact entered by him is void-ab-initio. 7
In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham8 it was held by the honble court that, as
a minor cannot enter into a contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.
In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit 9, it was held by the honble court
that, a contract is specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any
benefit under the contract. Even though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet,
guardian of a minor can validly enter into contract on his behalf.10
In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI11 it was held by the honble court that, a
contract must be entered into by a person who can make a promise or make an
offer. Else, the contract will be void as an agreement which is not enforceable under
law is void. Thus, minors cannot enter into a contract.12
For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must have a free consent. Consent is
defined under section 13 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 13 as agreement between two
7 Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
8 AIR 1956 AP.
9 AIR 1960 Cal 65.
10 T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
11 (2008) 8 SCC 205.
12 Supra 5.
13 Section 13, Indian contract Act, 1872:Consent defined
or more people upon the same thing in the same sense. Mutual consent is essential
for every agreement and agreement is generally essential for formation of contract.
Therefore, no binding contract can be formed if there is no consensus ad idem.
Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this honble court that as a minor is not
competent to give a valid consent, hence contract with Mr. Ajay is void as it does not
fulfil the conditions specified under section 10 and 13 of the Indian Contract Ac,
1872.
B.THAT NO QUASI-CONTRACTUAL RELATION HAS BEEN CREATED BETWEEN

THE PETITIONER,
MR. AJAY AND THE RESPONDENT, RELICOP
PHARMACEUTICALS CO. LTD.

before this honble court that Relicop Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd has not supplied any
necessities suited to his condition in life to Mr. Ajay. Thus, no quasi contractual
obligation of the nature specified under Section 68, Indian Contract Act, 1872 has
been created.
Under the Indian Law, the principle of indeditatus assumpsit or quasi contracts has
been incorporated to a limited extent under section 68 of the Indian Contract Act,
187214.
In the case of Peters v. Flemings15 it was held that, quasi contracts apply only in
cases where necessities are supplied to a minor. Necessities refer to things fit and
proper to the minor.16
Two or more people are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in
the same sense.
14 Claim of necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or

on his account If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone
whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with
necessities suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such
supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.
15 (1840) 6 M&W, 42.

NECESSITIES SUITED TO HIS CONDITION IN LIFE:

The provisions of section 68, Indian Contract Act, 1872 17, apply in cases where some
benefits have been provided by someone to a person incapable to enter into a
contract. In such cases, expenses of the same can be reimbursed by such person
only form the property of such incapable person. However, in the instant case, no
benefits have been provided by the Company to Mr. Ajay and there is no dispute
regarding reimbursement of its expenses. Instead, Mr. Ajay is alleging to have
entered into a contract with the Company and is claiming INR 15000 as per the
agreement.
Hence, the council on the behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully
submits before this honble court that no quasi-contractual relationship has been
created between the minor, Mr. Ajay and Relicop Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd.
C.THAT DOCTOR GUPTA
WAS NOT AWARE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT.
before this honble court that Dr. Gupta was neither aware of the advertisement
published in the Tribune newspaper by Relicop Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. Now was he
aware of the terms and conditions thereof.
An offer can be accepted by:
-
giving a notice of acceptance, or

by performing conditions of proposal, or
By acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be
offered with a proposal.
16 Supra 4.
Accepting by performing of conditions, or by receiving consideration, is covered

under Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 18. This section recognises the fact
that in the cases in which the proposer invites acceptance by doing of an act it is
sometimes impossible for the offeree to express his attention otherwise than by
performance of his part of the contract. 19
ACT DONE IN IGNORANCE OF PROPOSAL
A general offer open to the whole world is capable of being accepted by any person
who fulfils the conditions or who substantially performs them. But, an act done by a
person in ignorance of the offer will not amount to performance of the condition of
the proposal within the meaning of section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
An offer to be valid must be communicated. 20 Further, a person cannot be said to
have made an offer unless it comes to the knowledge of the offeree. An offeree
cannot be said to have accepted the offer, even if he acts according to the terms of
the offer. Thus, acting in ignorance of offer does not amount to acceptance of offer.21
MERE PERFORMANCE OF CONDITIONS
If any act or services are performed so that the terms of an offer to pay for them are
infact satisfied, but the performer is not aware that the offer has been made, the
question would arise as to whether he can claim payment after he becomes aware of
the offer.22
18 Section 8, Indian Contract Act, 1872 Accepting by performing of conditions, or by

receiving considerationPerformance of conditions of proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for
a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of
the proposal.
19 Ansons Law of Contract, 20th ed., p.35.

20 Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872.
21 Sanjiva Rows Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p.476.
In the case of Bloom v. America Swiss Watch Co.23 It was held by the honourable
court that, a person who gives information for which a reward has been offered
cannot claim reward unless he knew of the offer at the time of giving information.24
ACT NOT IN EXCHANGE OF OFFER

In the case of Australian Case of R. V. Clerk,25 a reward had been offered for anyone
who gives information leading to arrest and conviction of murderers of two police
officers. The clerk who knew the information was himself suspended of crime. He
gave the information leading to conviction of culprits. He admitted that he gave
information to clear himself of charge and with no thought of claiming reward. His
claim of reward failed as he did not give information in exchange of offer.26
In the case of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt,27 the defendants nephew absconded
from home. The plaintiff, who was defendants servant, was sent to search for the
missing boy. After the plaintiff had left for the search of the boy, the defendant issued
handbills announcing a reward of INR 501 to anyone who might find out the boy. The
plaintiff, who was ignorant of the reward, was successful in searching the boy. When
he can to know about the reward, he brought an action against the defendant, to
claim this award. It was held by the honourable court that, since the plaintiff was
ignorant of the offer of reward, his act of bringing the lost boy did not amount to
acceptance of offer, and therefore, he was not entitled to claim the reward.28
Thus, the council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits
before this honourable court that only if a person has knowledge of the offer and he
23 (1915) App. Div. 100.
25 (1927) 40 CLR.
26 Ibid.
27 (1913) 11 All.L.J. 489.
acts according to the terms of the offer, it amounts to acceptance thereof. Thus,
merely performing conditions of the offer without having knowledge thereof, does not
amount to a valid acceptance.
NO
CONDITION WAS FULFILLED TO CONSTITUTE A CONTACT UNDER SECTION
8, INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

before this honourable court that in the instant case, that in the instant case, no
condition was fulfilled to constitute a contract under the provisions of Section 8,
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
In the case of Williams v. Carwardine,29the plaintiff, who knew that reward has been
announced to be given to anyone who gave information leading to conviction of an
assailant for murder, gave the necessary information. While giving the information,
the plaintiff mentioned that she had given the information to ease her conscience. At
that time, she did not intent to claim the award. She however, subsequently bought
an action to claim the same. It was held by the honourable court that, since the offer
had been accepted with its knowledge, there was a valid contract and therefore, she
was entitled to claim the reward.30
before this honourable court that Dr. Gupta had merely prescribed the pills to Ajay for
a period of three weeks. This prescription was not made in accordance with the
directions printed on the box by Relicop Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. Thus, it does not
amount to performance of conditions of the proposal. Further, Dr. Gupta had no
knowledge of the said advertisement at the time of making the prescription to Mr.
Ajay. Thus, it does not amount to acceptance under section 8, Indian contract Act,
1872.
29 (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621.

30 Sanjiva Rows Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p.476.
Since, no contract has been entered between the two parties, the council on behalf
of the respondent most humbly submits before this honble court that the petitioner is
not entitled to any reward.
D. THAT MR. RAJAN DID NOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF AJAY.
before this honble court that Mr. Rajan did not enter into a contract on behalf of his
minor son Ajay. The petitioner was merely aware of the advertisement and he
believed the accuracy of the statements appearing in it. However, the council most
humbly submits that merely being aware of an offer does not amount to acceptance.
The petitioner did not do any act in furtherance of the offer in order to accept the
same. Instead, when his son Ajay fell down with fever, he was taken to their family
doctor Dr. Gupta and medicines were given to him as per the doctors prescription.
Hence, no conditions of the offer were fulfilled in order to constitute a valid
acceptance and thus, no contract was concluded between the parties.
EXTENT OF POWER OF GUARDIAN TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF A MINOR

before this honble court that in order to constitute a valid contract, one of the
essentials under section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 31 is that the parties must be
competent to contract. According to Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 32 a person
is competent to contract if he has attained the age of majority, is of sound mind and
is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. According to
the Indian Majority Act, 1875 a person is said to have attained majority on completing
the age of 18 years.
The council most humbly submits that a minor is not competent to give a valid
consent and a contract entered by a minor is thus void. However, the council most
humbly submits that in certain exceptional cases a guardian can enter into a contract
31 Supra 1.
32 Supra 2.
on behalf of the minor. This can be done provided it is for the benefit of the minor or
to provide him with necessities fit for his condition in life. 33
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF HINDU MINOR
The council on behalf of the respondent most humbly are respectfully submits before
this honble bench that natural guardian of a Hindu minor male, a defined under
section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 34 are his parents. Thus
only his father, Mr. Rajan, can enter into a contract on his behalf.
In the case of Hari v. Sew35it was held by the honble court that, it is to be
remembered that a person who is neither appointed a guardian by any court, nor
could claim that status under the law applicable to minors, cannot enter into valid
contract on his behalf. Such a contract is treated as a void contract and cannot to
upheld as a family settlement.36
before this honble court that Dr. Gupta cannot be considered as a guardian of Ajay.
Further, as the proposal of the company was neither accepted by the minor nor by
his father, thus none of them can sue the company for breach as no valid contract
has been entered between them.
33 Supra7 and supra 9.
34 Section 6, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956Natural
Guardian of a Hindu Minor:
The natural guardian of a hindu minor, in respect of the minors person and property
are
a) In case of a boy or unmarried girl the father and after him, the mother, provided
that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall
ordinarily be with his mother;
b) In case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl the mother, and
after her, the father;
c) In case of a married girl the husband.
Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as a natural guardian of a minor under
the provisions of this section
a) If he had ceased to be a hindu, or
b) If he has completely and finally renounced the world.
35 AIR 1949 Assam 57.

CONTRACT OF NECESSITY
Under the English law, a contract entered by a minor for necessities is valid.
However, in India, this principal has been adopted to limited extent under section 68,
Indian Contract Act, 187237. This provision is applicable only in cases of necessity to
provide him with things suited to his condition in life. 38
IF MINOR HAS REAPED ANY BENEFIT
In the case of Rajubala Desi v. Nidhurama Pandit,39 it was held by the honble
court that, a contract is specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped
any benefit under the contract. Further, even though a minor cannot enter into a
contract, yet, guardian of a minor can validly enter into a contract on behalf of the
minor.40
AGREEMENT IN SUB-SILENTIO
before this honble court that under certain circumstances, offerees silence, couples
with his conduct, which takes form of positive act, may constitute acceptance, under
an agreement sub-silentio.41 Therefore, terms of a contract between parties can be
proved not only by his words but also by his conduct. 42

38 Peters v. Flemings (1840) 6 M&W 42.

39 AIR 1960 Cal 65.
42 Ibid.
In the case of Kedar Das Mohta v. Nand Lal Poddar,43 it was held by the honble
court that, there must be reciprocity as to the binding of agreement between person
who wants to enforce it and person against whom it is sought to be enforced. 44
before this honble court that conduct coupled with positive act amounts to valid
acceptance of contract, even if the party is silence. But, mere knowledge of proposal
does not amount to a valid acceptance if it is not coupled with a positive act.
E.THAT PROPOSAL
WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND PARTIES DID NOT ENTER INTO A
VALID CONTRACT.
The council on behalf of the petitioner must humbly and respectfully submits before
this honble court that no acceptance was made by the petitioner towards the general
offer made by Relicop Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. And thus, they did not enter into any
valid contract.
THAT A GENERAL OFFER WAS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT
before this honble court that the respondent Relicop Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. had
made a general offer to the public at large that a reward of INR 15000 will be paid by
the company to anyone who contracts the emerging H1N1 flu or the related virus
after taking their pills daily for three weeks as per the directions prescribed on the
box.
An offer made to the public at large is called a general offer. The person who
accepts such an offer, generally, by performing its conditions, can bind the person
making the offer. Although a general offer is made to the public at large, the contract
is concluded only with that person who acts upon the terms of the offer, i.e., who
accepts the offer. Two manifestations of a willingness to make the same bargain do
not constitute a contract unless one is made with reference to the other.
43 AIR 1971 Pat 253 p. 255-256.
44 Supra 4.
In the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.,45it was held by the honble court
that, this being a general offer addressed to the world, had ripened into a contract
with the plaintiff by her act of performance of conditions, and, thus accepting the
offer. Although the offer is made to the world, the contract is made with that limited
portion of the public who comes forward and performs the condition on the faith of
the advertisement.46
NO ACCEPTANCE MADE BY THE PETITIONER
before this honble court that the petitioner, Mr. Rajan was merely aware of the
advertisement and he believed in the accuracy of the statements appearing in the
advertisement. However, for a valid contract to be made, the proposee should either
accept the offer expressly or imply his acceptance through his conduct which takes
form of a positive act. The petitioner did not fulfil any of the two conditions, instead
he took his son to his family doctor and took medicines as per his prescription. 47
Hence, the council on behalf of the petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits
before this honble court that the petitioner did not accept the general offer made by
the respondent company and hence no contract was entered between the parties.
Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the amount claimed.
THAT
MEDICINES WERE NOT TAKEN ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTIONS SPECIFIED BY THE
RESPONDENT COMPANY.
before this honble court that the petitioner did not consume the pills according to the
conditions specified by the respondent.
Arguendo, the advertisement that appeared in the Tribune dated 15 th June, 2015
stated that a reward of INR 15000 will be paid by the respondent company to anyone
who contracts H1N1 flu after taking their pills daily for three weeks as per the
45 (1893) 1 Q.B. 256 at 268.
directions printed on the box. Although the petitioner had consumed the same
pills, but they were not consumed as per the directions specified by the company.
Rather, a three week course of the pills were taken as per the directions of their
family doctor.
Hence, by not consuming the pills as per the directions of the respondent company,
the petitioner did not efficiently comply with the conditions and hence, no valid
acceptance of the general offer was made. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the
amount of INR 15000.
THE PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Honble Court to adjudge
and declare that:
Mr. Ajay is a minor and does not have capacity to enter into a valid contract.
Dr. Gupta was not aware of the terms and conditions prescribed in the
advertisement.
The parties did not enter into a valid contract.
The petitioner did not consume the pills as per the directions of the
Respondent Company.
The petitioner is not entitled to the sum of INR 15000.
And any other order which this Honble Court may be pleased to grant in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Date:
Place:
Counsels for the Respondent

Memorial Moot Respondent

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Memorial Moot Respondent

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

T

ACADEMIC MOOT COURT COMPETITION - II, 2015

IN THE HONBLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

MR. AJAY (MINOR, AGE 12 YEARS)

MR. RAJAN, NATURAL GUARDIAN

RELICOP PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

The Table of Contents..................................................................................2

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Bloom v. America Swiss Watch Co (1915) App. Div. 100..04

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., (1893) 1 Q.B. 256 at 26808

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 1

Hari v. Sew AIR 1949 Assam 57...07

Kashiba v. Shripat (1894) 19 Bom 697....01

Latcharao v. Viswanadham , AIR 1956 AP.....02

Peters v. Flemings (1840) 6 M&W 42...07

Peters v. Flemings (1840) 6 M&W, 42..03

R. V. Clerk, (1927) 40 CLR.04

Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit AIR 1960 Cal 65.......02

Rajubala Desi v. Nidhurama Pandit AIR 1960 Cal 65.07

All India Reporter

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 2

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A reward of INR 15000 was announced by Relicop Pharmaceutical Co.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 3

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 4

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

That Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 5

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

That the petitioner Mr. Ajay is not competent to contract.

That no quasi-contractual relation has been created between the

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 6

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTPAGE 7

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Parties should be competent to contract

1 When agreements are contracts:All agreements are contracts if they are

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERSPAGE 1

AGE OF MAJORITY UNDER THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.

2 Who are competent to contract Every person is competent to contract who

3 H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, p. 231.

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERSPAGE 2

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERSPAGE 3

B.THAT NO QUASI-CONTRACTUAL RELATION HAS BEEN CREATED BETWEEN

MR. AJAY AND THE RESPONDENT, RELICOP

PHARMACEUTICALS CO. LTD.

14 Claim of necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or

15 (1840) 6 M&W, 42.

NECESSITIES SUITED TO HIS CONDITION IN LIFE:

C.THAT DOCTOR GUPTA

WAS NOT AWARE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

PRESCRIBED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT.

giving a notice of acceptance, or

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONERSPAGE 5

Accepting by performing of conditions, or by receiving consideration, is covered

MERE PERFORMANCE OF CONDITIONS

18 Section 8, Indian Contract Act, 1872 Accepting by performing of conditions, or by

19 Ansons Law of Contract, 20th ed., p.35.

ACT NOT IN EXCHANGE OF OFFER

CONDITION WAS FULFILLED TO CONSTITUTE A CONTACT UNDER SECTION

CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

29 (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621.

EXTENT OF POWER OF GUARDIAN TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF A MINOR