Page |1

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HONBLE

CIVIL COURT, BEDFORD

CASE NO. .OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

TERMINATOR COMPANY........................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HOMER................................................................. DEFENDANT

ON SUBMISSION TO

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017

 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF REFERENCES.. Ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................ V

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................... Vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. Vii

BODY OF ARGUMENTS. 11
I.
PRAYER........................................................................................................................

2|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

INDEX OF REFERENCES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1. The Contracts Act, 1872

BOOKS

Dhirajlal & Ratanlal, The Law of Torts, Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur
Bangia R.L., Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad

DICTIONARIES
1. Advanced law lexicon
2. Oxfrord dictionary online

WEBSITES
1. www.lawlink.com
2. www.lawnotes.com
3. www.indiankannon.com

3|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

TABLE OF CASES:-

1. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] A.C. 161

2. Dularia Devi V. Janardan Singh A.I.R 1990 S.C. 1173

3. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Lincoln City Council[1999] 2 A.C. 34

4. Raffles v Wichelhaus AIR 1998 S.C.1400

5. Scammell v Ousto1941 AC 251

6. Solle v.Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671

7. Tarsem Singh V Sukhminder Singh AIR 1998 S.C.1400.

4|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present Petition is filed before the Honble Court under section 15 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908

That the section 15 of the CPC states that:

Court in which suits to be instituted: Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the
lowest grade competent to try it.

5|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Homer, the respondent is a business owner in Bedford and in 2016 he was in urgent need
of fumigation due to excessive number of insects his offices. On 4th October 2016, through an
internet search he found a company called Pest Patrol and contacted them through phone, who
further offered the fumigation at a cost of 400 through their representative named Christine. It
was agreed between Home and Christine that the agreement shall be posted to Homer within a
short span and Homer had to sign and mail the contract back to the company for evidentiary
purposes. On 5th October, when Homer received the contract, he went through the terms and
conditions and duly signed the document and mailed it to Christine.

Few days passed and Homer neither heard from Christine nor did the Pest Patrol
company picked his phone calls. Frustrated, on 11th October, he tried contacting another
company named, Terminator and discussed his problem of wanting to get rid of insects with
Louis, the petitioner and also the representative of the Terminator. Louis responded saying 'we
have all the chemicals needed to kill any type of Insect and the equipment for the fumigation. It
will cost you 350 to hire including the cost of chemicals. Homer agreed believing that the cost
included overall charges of fumigation and the next day was scheduled for Louis visit. So,
Homer wrote a second letter to Pest Patrol for termination of the contract due to unexplained
delay on the part of the company.

On 12thOctober Louis showed up only with the material required for the fumigation and it
was then Homer came to know about the fact that the oral commitment between him and Louis
was construed by Louis to be a contract of only renting the material and not for providing for the
services of fumigation. Homer never had the intention of only buying the material required for
fumigation and hence he refused to accept the material and contracted another agency Insects
gone for the fumigation of his offices.

On 20thOctober, 2016, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent to either accept the
material and make the payment or the respondent shall be sued for the breach of contract. Hence,
this petition.

6|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. WHETHER THE THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT?

It is submitted that there is no valid contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In Fact,
the contract between both the parties is void as it is ambiguous in nature.

The conversation between both the parties makes it clear that there was ambiguity
about what the parties intended. The meaning of the agreement was not certain to neither of
the parties. Section 29 of the Indian contract act deals with such kind of ambiguous
agreement and declare them agreement void in nature. It is a well known rule of contracts
that the terms should be clear and should not be in a confusing manner. Essential terms tell
the parties what their essential rights and obligations are. They are terms which are at the
heart of the agreement.

If the terms are complete but their meaning is unclear, it is difficult for courts to establish
what constitutes performance and breach. It is well settled that a contract cannot be uncertain.
It must not be vague. Its terms must not be indefinite. A contract, it is said must be construed
so as to lead to a conclusion that the parties understood the meaning thereof.

B. WHETHER THE DEFENSE OF MISTAKE OF FACT UNDER

SECTION 20 IS AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT OR NOT?
It is submitted that the defense of mistake of fact under Section 20 of the Indian Contract
Act is available to the Defendant. Defendant was not aware of the fact the Plaintiff Company
gives fumigation equipment and chemicals on rent. He was of the view that Plaintiff
company provides service of fumigation as it is clear from the statement of facts that his
intention was to get his office fumigated as soon as possible Further Plaintiff cannot take
defense of section 22 of the Indian contract act, 1872.

7|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. WHETHER THE THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT?

8|Page
 UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE
-PRAYE

P R AY E R

W HEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN
AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HONBLE COMMISSION MAY BE PLEASED TO:

T O HOLD

COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER UNDER SECTION 2(1) D CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT 1986.
THERE WAS NO INSURABLE INTEREST ON GOODS SUBJECTED TO THEFT
THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT
THERE WAS BREACH OF POLICY BY THE COMPLAINANT

TO DIRECT

TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CONSUMER.

MISCELLANEOUS
AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HONBLE COMMISSION MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT
IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

9|Page
UILS ACADEMIC MOOT, 2017
DEFENDANT SIDE

10 | P a g e