Statement of Jurisdiction

THE INTERCLASS LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PUNE 2009

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

________________________________________________________________________

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

TO TRY AND ENTERTAIN THIS APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 132 & 133

OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


PUNE 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

______________________________________________________________________________________

A SUPPLIED GOODS TO B , IN ACCORDANCE TO SAMPLE SUBMITTED BY B , B IS NOT SATISFIED BY THE QUALITY OF GOODS AND WANTS TO TAKE A LEGAL PROCEEDING AGAINST A .

THAT THE CASE LIES FOR THE HON’BLE COURT’S CONSIDERATION .



PUNE 2009

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE A IS FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT.

2. WHETHER A HAS DONE FRAUD WITH B.

3. WHETHER B IS LIABLE TO GET THE COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF A

DIDN’T PROVIDED SATISFIED QUALITY OF GOODS AS PER THE DEMAND

OF B.



PUNE 2009

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

THAT THE RESPONDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT , FRAUD , AS PER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 .

SECTION 17 THAT EXPLAIN FRAUD IS APPLICABLE AS THE RESPONDENT HAVE MALAFIDE INTENTION TO DECIEVE THEREFORE IS RESPONDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT .

SECTION 73 COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO GET THE COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGES CAUSED .

THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED THE VARIOUS OFFENCES OF SALES OF GOODS OF ACT 1930

SECTION 41 ILLUSTRATE THAT THE APPLENT HAS GOT RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE GOODS. SECTION 17 TELLS ABOUT THE SALE BY SAMPLE .

SECTION 16(1) TALKS ABOUT THE FITNESS FOR BUYER’S PURPOSE.

SECTION 16(2) SAYS THE GOODS MUST WE OF MERCHANTABLE QUALITY.



PUNE 2009

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2) THE RESPONDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAUD UNDER SECTION 17 & BREACH OF CONTRACT AS UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 .

SECTION 17 FOR FRAUD HAS GOT A CLEAR APPLICABILITY IN THIS CASE AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT THE RESPONDENT IS A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO DECIEVE THE APPELLANT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING . THERFORE , RESPONDENT LIABLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 .

SECTION 73 COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 . SECTION 73 FOR COMPENSATION SHOULD IS AWARDED TO APPELLANT AS THERE WAS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT AS THE FACTS MENTIONEDAS THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FULFILL THE WHOLE REQURIMENTS OF THE CONTRACT . THEREFORE RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF BREACHING THE CONTRACT . AND DUE TO THIS THE APPELLANT HAD OCCURRED THE HEAVY LOSSES .

HENCEFORTH , APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO WE GET COMPENSATION FROM RESPONDENT .



PUNE 2009

1) THE RESPONDENT IS RESPONBILE FOR THE SALE BY DESCRIPTION UNDER SECTION 15, SALE BY SAMPLE UNDER SECTION 17 AND SECTION 41 OF SALES OF GOOD ACT,1930

1. SECTION 17 SALE BY SAMPLE :- A CONTRACT OF SALE IS A CONTRACT FOR SALE BY SAMPLE WHERE TERE IS A TERM IN THE CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THAT EFFECT.

APPELLANT HAD SHOWN VERY CLEAR SAMPLE TO RESPONDENT AND AFTER RESPONDENT HAD ACCEPTED THE SAMPLE AND AGREED TO SUPPLY THE SAME .

2. SECTION 15 SALE BY DESCRIPTION :- WHICH CLEARLY SAYS THAT WHEN THERE IS CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS BY DESCRIPTION,THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THE GOODS SHALL CORRESPOND WITH THE DESCRIPTION; AND, IF THE SALE IS BY SAMPLE AS WELL AS BY DESCRIPTION, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THE BULK OF THE GOODS CORRESPONDS WITH THE SAMPLE IF THE GOODS DO NOT ALSO CORRESPOND WITH THE DESCRIPTION.

APPELLANT HAD GIVEN THE WHOLE DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS TO BE SUPPLIED . BUT THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO DO SO .

3. SECTION 41 BUYER’S RIGHT OF EXAMINING THE GOODS :- WHERE GOODS ARE DELIVERED TO THE BUYER WHICH HE HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY EXAMINED, HE IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE ACCEPTED THEM UNLESS AND UNTIL HE HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPURTUNITY OF EXAMINING THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER THEY ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONTRACT.

AFTER EXAMINING THE GOODS APPELLANT FOUND THAT BULK SUPPLIED BY THE RESPONDENT IT WAS FOUND THAT BULK IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAMPLE .


PUNE 2009


3. SECTION 16 (1) FITNESS FOR BUYER’S PURPOSE : - WHERE THE BUYER , EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION , MAKES KNOWN TO THE SELLER THE PARTICULARPURPOSE FOR WHICH GOODS ARE REQURIED SO AS TO SHOW THAT THE BUYER RELIES ON THE SELLER’S SKILL OR JUDGEMENT AND THE GOODS ARE OD A DESCRIPTION WHICH IT IS IN THE COURSE OF THE SELLER ‘S BUSINESS TO SUPPLY THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THE GOODS BE RESONABLY FIT FOR PURPOSE .

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT WAS FAMILIER WITH THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANT FOR WHICH THE GOODS WERE IS REQURIED . SECTION 16 (2) MERCHANTABLE QUALITY :- WHERE THE GOODS ARE BOUGHT BY DESCRIPTION FROM A SELLER WHO DEALS IN GOODS OF THAT DESCRIPTION THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THE GOODS SHALL BE OF MERCHANTABLE QUALITY.

THE GOODS SUPLLIED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE NOT OF MERCHANTABLE QUALITY WHICH WERE OF NO USE TO APPELLANT .

I


PUNE 2009


THESE ALL CLAUSES CLEARY SHOWS AND REFLECTS THE FRAUD NATURE OF RESPONDENT .

RESPONDENT IS CLEARLY RESPONIBLE FOR THE FRAUD , BREACH OF CONTRACT ,

RESPONDENT ALSO COMMITS MANY OFFENCES UNDER THE VARIOUS SECTIONS ON SALES OF GOODS ACT .

THE RESPONDENT WAS HAVING THE MALAFIDE CONTENSIONS OF NOT PERFORMING THE CONTRACT FROM VERY STARTING.\

DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE WAS DONE BY RESPONDENT EVEN AFTER THE SAMPLE WAS DISPLAYED INFRONT OFF .


PUNE 2009


PRAYER

Whereof, in the lights of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is

humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court:

1. That the plaintiff should be compensated by the defendant .

2. That the defendant should replace the goods.

3. That the damages occurred to plaintiff must be fulfilled by the defendant.

4. The interest on money that plaintiff had paid must be paid back .

5. The specific performance of the contract by respondent must be done.

6. Any Other Remedy Which The Hon’ble Court May Deem Fit In The Interest Of

Justice, Equity And Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness the counsel duty bound shall ever pray

Place: Submitted by Counsel:

Date:


PUNE 2009


STATUTES REFERRED

1. SALES OF GOODS ACT , 1930.

2. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT .1872

BOOKS REFERRED

1. LAW OF CONTRACTS AND SPECIFIC RELIEF BY AVTAR SINGH

2. LAW OF SALES OF GOODS ACT AND HIRE PURCHASE BY AVTAR

SINGH

3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE By PROFESSIONSAL BOOK

PUBLISHERS

4. THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE By LEXIS NEXIS

E-SOURCES

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.supremecourtofindiaonline.nic.in

3. www.findlaw.com

http://www.supremecourtofindiaonline.nic.in/

http://www.manupatra.com/


PUNE 2009


DICTIONARIES

1. Oxford English Dictionary, 2007, Tenth Edi..

2. Aiyar P.R., Concise Law Dictionary, 2009, Third Edi.


PUNE 2009


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. A.I.R…………………………….…..…ALL INDIA REPORTER

2. Pg…………………………………………………..PAGE NUMBER

3. Ors.……………………………..….OTHERS

4. Hon’ble…………………………………………....HONOURABLE

5. SEC………………………….……..SECTION

6. &…………………………………………………...AND

7. SC……………………………………….SUPREME COURT

8. SCC…………………………………… SUPREME COURT CASES

9. V.………………………………………….VERSUS

10. ANR………………………………………ANOTHER

11. Edn…………………………………………………EDITION

12. I.C.A ………………………………………….INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

13. S.G.A ……………………………………….SALES OF GOODS ACT

14. I.PC…………………………………….INDIAN PENAL CODE


PUNE 2009


BEFORE THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION ) BOMBAY,

Appeal No………/…

B

………………… APPELLANT(B) V.

A

…. ……………….. RESPONDENT.(A)

Memorial Submitted Before Hon’ble Judge:…………..…and other pusine judges.

Memorial Submitted By Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of The APPELLANT


PUNE 2009


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………

LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………..

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………..…

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………..…

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….

RESPONDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT , FRAUD , AS PER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 ………………………………………………..

RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED THE VARIOUS OFFENCES OF SALES OF GOODS OF ACT 1930……………………………………………………………..

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………..

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………..

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………


PUNE 2009


LEGAL NOTICED.C.CHOPRAAxel law firm Mumbai .

To Mr. Ajay Sinha (A)(R/O 123 PAUD ROAD , PUNE )

DEAR SIR ,

UNDER INSTRUCTION AND BEHALF OF MY CLIENT MR. PRAKASH MEHRA (B) IT IS HEREBY SERVED YOU A LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSS AND DAMAGES INCURRED BY MY CLIENT . 1. THAT MY CLIENT IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS FOR THE SUPPLY OF

READY-MADE GARMENTS IN WHOLESALE AS WELL AS IN RETAIL IN THE MAEKET OF BOMBAY.

2. THAT MY CLIENT WAS IN NEED OF 1000 FULL LENGTH OF CLOTH WHICH WAS TO BE SUPPLIED BY HIM TO DIFFERENT SHOPKEEPERS IN THE BOMBAY MARKET CONSEQUENTLY HE MADE A CONTACT WITH YOU,AND ASKING YOU TO COME TO BOMBAY TO GET THE ORDER BOOKED UPOON REASONABLE PRICES.

3. THAT YOU COME TO BOMBAY ON 1/2/2009 AND AFTER NEGOTIATION IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT YOU WILL SUPPLY 1000 PIECES FULL LENGTH OF CLOTH WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND THE PRICE OF THE GOODS WAS AGREEDE TO THE SUM OF RS. 5,00,000.00.

4. THAT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT WAS REDUCED IN WRITING IN THE SHAPE OF AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SIGNED BY MY CLIENT AS WELL AS BY YOU AND AT THE SAME TIME MY CLIENT HAS GIVEN A SAMPLE OF CLOTHS AND YOU WERE LIABLE TO SUPPLY THE CLOTHS IN STRICT ACCORDANCE TO THE SAMPLE.


PUNE 2009


5. THAT MY CLIENT RECEIVED AYOUR CONSIGNMENT WITIN THE STIPULATED PEROID BUT MY CLIENT FOUND THAT YOU HAVE SUPPLIED THE GOODS OF SUBSTANDARD QUALITY WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SAMPLE GIVEN BY YOU AS SUCH YOU HAVE COMMITTED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

6. THAT THE RETAILER AS WELL AS WHOLESALE DEALER OF MY CLIENT DISAPPROVED THE GOODS SUPPLIED BY YOU AND MY CLIENT HAS INCURRED HEAVY LOSSES AND DAMAGES.

7. THAT MY CLIENT HAS SUFFERED A LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS .50000 TOWARDS THE LOSS OF PROFIT AND RS.90,000.00 TOWARDS BANK INTEREST AS SUCH YOU ARE LIABLE TO PAY RS.1,40,000.00 TOWARDS COMPENSATION FOR LOSS DAMAGES INCURRED BY MY CLIENT AND RS.5,00,000.00 WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO YOU MY CLIENT AS ADVANCE MONEY.

HENCE LEGAL NOTICE IS HEREBY SERVED UPON YOU TO PAY THE SUM OF Rs. 6,40,000.00 TO MY CLIENT WITIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE FAILLING WHICH MY CLIENT WOULD BE CONSTRAIN TO FILE A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ALL COSTS AND DAMAGES .

D.C.CHOPRA

AXEL LAW FIRM


PUNE 2009


Statement of Jurisdiction

Documents

Transcript of Statement of Jurisdiction