8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

1/6

[Type text]

May it please your lordship; the Council is appearing on behalf of the appellant

May I proceed with your permission?

Much obliged

For establishing my arguments I would like to start by stating the issues in

question and they are as follows:

1. Whether there was any valid contract between appellant and respondent at

first instance.

2. Whether delayed response to a previously known offer constitutes mala fide

intention from the side of a person.

3. Whether duress (i.e. economic duress) was applied in this particular fact or

not.

4. Whether chance of getting further custom constitutes a valid consideration for

appellant.

5. Whether account settlement between appellant and respondent took place in

fact or not.

6. Whether there was economic duress from Appellant too, as they subsequently

faced credit crunch.

7. Whether Promissory Estoppel could be applied in this particular instance.

Now I will try to prove the issues in favor of the appellant X-treme Ltd.

according to the following issues.

1. That there was a valid contract between the parties at the first instance.

As there was a clear and specific offer and acceptance from both side

party and they rightly entered into a contract with an intention to

create legal obligation so there was a valid contract in the first instance

8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

2/6

8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

3/6

[Type text]

Economic duress may exist even if a person is just narrating his problem or bad

condition to other party to the contract.

Here respondent told appellant over phone that he had lost his job and if they

did not allow him the discount he feared not being able to afford to pay it

otherwise.

This is one kind of duress. Economic duress is present in this case.

Here D and C Builders Ltd. vs. I will like to quote Lord Denning MRs some

wordings here Rees, [1966]

The party was putting undue pressure on the creditor. She was making a threat

to break the contract (by paying nothing) and she was doing it so as to compel

the creditor to do what he was unwilling to do (to accept 300 in settlement):

and she succeeded.

So she applied duress which is not at all acceptable. Economic duress is surely

present in this case. So a promise obtained under duress will have no effect.

4. Whether chance of getting further custom constitutes a valid

consideration for appellant:

Here the point from the second paragraph of the fact it appears that the

possibility of getting further customer as assumed by the area manager of

appellant could be argued as a consideration for the appellant. But here it

appears from the fact that the respondents were not being able to perform his

existing contractual obligation due to losing his job so the hope of getting

further custom from him is vague. So here the subsequent agreement between

the area manager and respondent is nudum pactum (it generally means a

promise without a consideration and it is at nullity)

8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

4/6

[Type text]

Price v Easton (1833) - It was held that Price's claim must fail, as he had not

provided consideration.

So there must be some consideration in a contract. Even past consideration is a

good consideration in some cases. An Agreement without a consideration is

void.

So in this particular case there was no consideration at all. And so this

agreement cannot bind the parties in future.

5. Whether account settlement between appellant and respondent took place

in fact or not:

That the lower court did error of fact in deciding the account settlement issue.

The lower court did error of facts and misread the evidences and precedents

sought by the 1st party-appellant in deciding the account settlement issue. The

acceptance of tk. 100000/- is to be regarded as forced acceptance. The fact is

that the 2nd party-respondent offered tk. 100000/- in full settlement and if the

1st party-appellant did not accept, the money would not be repaid. And for that

after acceptance the previous amount the appellant wrote back that the account,

i.e., the document of transaction had been already settled and the respondent has

to pay the remaining one-off debt as early as possible. But as the respondent

didnt do so and also for the downturn in business the 1st party -appellant filed

the original suit against the 2nd party-respondent. Therefore, this appeal is to be

allowed and the order of the lower court is liable to be set aside.

6. Whether there was economic duress from appellant too, as they subsequently

faced credit crunch :

Here from the analysis of point 3. of the argument it is shown that there was

economic duress on part of respondent so the matter of economic duress in the

case of appellant is immaterial. Then again from point number 6 it is clear that

8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

5/6

[Type text]

the account had not been settled and appellant was not bound by their promise.

So the point of economic duress on part of respondent is totally immaterial.

7. Whether Promissory Estoppel could be applied in this particular instance:

Here the doctrine of promissory estoppel as applied in many leading cases will

not be applicable at all.

The main fact is part payment of a debt in satisfaction of the full cannot

disentitle the creditor to claim the full. This was found in Pinnels case .

In the judgment it was said that payment of a lesser sum on t he day in

satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it

appears to the Judges that by no possibility, a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to

the plaintiff for a greater sum

The traditional application of the doctrine as found in the

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB

130 or the High Trees case is not applicable to this fact.

So here respondent was not entitled to the benefit of promissory estoppel as it

was a case of one off debts. As the appellant were creditors for the remaining

2lachs, mere promise or statement cannot make them bound to comply with it.

Prayer:

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, it is humbly prayed before the honorable Court that it may be graciously

pleased to:

That the appellant might get the contract performed by the respondent and

The respondent should make bound to pay them the respective money in issue.

8/12/2019 Arguement Appellant

6/6

[Type text]