Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In the Matter of
Sudhir…………………………………………………………Plaintiff
Vs
Mohit……………………………………………………….Defendant
1
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Table of contents
1. Statements of Facts…………………………………………… 3
2. Statement of Issues…………………………………………… 4
3. Summary of Arguments……………………………………… 5
4. Argument Advanced………………………………………….. 6
5. Prayer………………………………………………………….
2
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Statement of Facts
1. Mohit a student of 11th class of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vasant Vihar Dehradun. Aged
16 years and 8 months.
2. Sudhir, a rice trader in Palten Bazar.
3. Sudhir entered into a contract with Mohit to sell 500kg of rice at Rs 65/kg
4. Mohit knowingly entered into the contract with Sudhir.
5. Mohit failed to perform his duties towards the contract.
3
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Statement of Issue
4
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Summary of Arguments
The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble District court that there is a loss of
the trader as he was supposed that the rice was to be sold to the defendant but the
defendant failed to perform his duty as this was created a time loss for the plaintiff
Sudhir and the goods are of perishable nature so it also barred the plaintiff to sell it to
other party as he cannot breach the contract.
The contract was breached on the part of the defendant Mohit so he would be liable
for to give compensation to the plaintiff for his loss and breach of contract.
5
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Argument Advanced
The council humbly submits before this Hon’ble District court that the plaintiff is
liable to seek the compensation from the defendant in the followings ways:
The concept of basic necessities comes on the point that the plaintiff is selling rice
which is a basic essential and supplying this so it states the contract as valid in the
eyes of law.
6
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
In the present case this was a live example that the goods that are to be supplied to the
defendant Mohit are of necessities as the rice comes under basic food essentials, and
supplying those essential food to a minor was an act done in necessity as the minor
was incapable of earning the necessities for the same as in the case of Mohori Bibi v.
Dhurmodas Ghose1 it was stated that Section 68 applies to minor as well as to persons
of unsound mind and other, similarly in the present case the plaintiff was supplying
the basic necessities to the defendant so the contract cannot be said as ‘void ab initio’
was on a total fail because according to Section 68 of Indian Contract act 1872
This Section clearly states that if a person is supplying the basic necessities to a minor
then he is entitled to reimbursed back. In the present case the plaintiff was selling the
basic necessities and as the contract was breached on the part of defendant then it is
the responsibility of the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the losses as the
plaintiff suffered loss like time loss, as the time was wasted as he has to wait till the
breach for the selling of the rice, if Mohit doesn’t entered into a contract with Sudhir
then he can easily and conveniently with saving his precious time can sell the goods
to the other party as the goods are of perishable nature so there is a chance of getting
distorted or the rice can get rotten.
In the present case the claim on the base of necessity under Section 68 of Indian
Contract Act 1872, the plaintiff is liable for to seek compensation for the loss arises
on the breach of contract by the defendant Mohit.
1
(1903) 30 Cal 593 : LR 30 IA 114
7
ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Prayer
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and
arguments advanced,
It is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to declare
that Mohit is liable to compensate Sudhir for his losses due to the breach of contract.
And pass any other order that it deems fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.