Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018

Jamia Millia Islamia

TEAM CODE-44

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASNARD

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ..... OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

HPC LTD., & AMY SANTIAGO ….........……………………Appellant

VERSUS

STEVE ROVERS ….……………………..………………….RESPONDENT

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ASNARD)

Most Respectfully Submitted before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Other Judges
of Supreme Court of Judicature at Asnard.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE Appellant

1|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………............3-4

2) THE LIST OF ABBREVATIONS………………………………………………5

3) THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………...6

4) THE STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………...........7-8

5) THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………..9

6) THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………….10-13

7) THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………..14-21

8) PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………22

2|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

CASES REFERRED

 Derry v. Peek, (1889) LR 14 AC 337

 Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust  (1996) 3 SCC 310
 Carter v Boehm [1766] (Kings Bench); Duty to speak
 Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors AIR 1 SC 2016
 S.K. Aggarwal, Indian Business Laws 69 (2nd ed., 2006), Nursery Spg&Wvg Co Ltd, Re, ILR
(1880) % Bom 92, Sri Alam v Newaires (1994) 1 Current LJ 32 (Malaysia)
 Sheikh JaruBepari v. AG Peters AIR 1942 Cal 493
 Brault v. Indrakrishna Kaul AIR 1933
 Carter v Boehm [1766] (Kings Bench); Duty to speak
 Nocton v. Lord Ashburton (1914-15) All ER Rep 45 (HL)
 Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh & Ors

Books Referred
1. AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF, (11TH ED., 2013)
2. PANDEY J.N., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (55TH ED., 2018)
3. M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6TH ED., 2011)
4. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14TH ED., 2009)
5. ARVIND P. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2 ND
ED. REPRINT 2010)

3|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

LEGISLATIONS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

2. INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
3. DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940

WEBSITES REFERENCE

 www.indiakanoon.org

 www.indlawinfo.org

 www.legalserviceIndia.com

 www.legalsutra.org

 www.lexisnexisacademic.com

 www.macmillandictionary.com

 www.manupatra.com

 www.scconline.com

 www.scdecision.in

 www.supremeCourtcases.com

 www.vakilno1.com

4|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter,

V. Versus

S.C Supreme Court

HON’BLE Honorable

GOVT. Government

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

LR Law Reports

HL House Of Lords

5|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants humbly submits this memorandum filed by the counsels for the Appellants
before this bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Asnard. The Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to try,
entertain and dispose of this case proceedings under Article 136 of The Constitution of Asnard.

“Article 136- Special leave to Appeal by the Supreme court”

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the Territory of India(Asnard).

(2) Nothing in Clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

6|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Healing Hand Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., henceforth referred as HPC ltd. is a leading
Company in the pharmacy industry of Democratic state of Asnard. The company enjoys
absolute monopoly over production of a Capsule named ‘Lobanza’, that is prescribed for
adults in order to get rid from their addiction of drugs and other Narcotic substances. But
it is strongly advised that Lobanza must not be consumed when a person is still
consuming drugs/tobacco as it can cause death because of volatile reactions.
Mr. Tony Snark is a well known business tycoon and owner of HPC ltd.

 4th June,2017: HPC ltd. purchased its first LPT machine from Mr. Steve Rovers, that
proved to be a boon for HPC ltd.

 14th August,2017: An Agreement was entered in between HPC ltd. and Mr. Steve
Rovers regarding purchase of three more LPT machines intended for the production of
‘Lobanza’ capsules, but one of the 3 machines was used by them for production of a
different medicine with different chemical composition. Mr. Steve Rovers ensured the
delivery of the three machines within 5 days, i.e, till 19th August, 2017 but eventually the
delivery was made after 9 days, i.e, on 23rd August, 2017. Despite the delay in delivery
no apprehensions were shown by HPC ltd. and complete agreed sum of $30 million was
paid to Mr. Steve. On the above mentioned date Mr. Steve received a detailed report from
the auditor categorically highlighting certain patent defects in those 3 LPT machines that
were intended to be sold to HPC ltd.

 Some critics were made against both, LPT machine as well as ‘Lobanza’ Capsule. For
Instance Mr. Frank Thunderwood on 1st september,2017 managed to publish an article
in the Journal of Asnardian Institute of Technology about infirmities in LPT machines.
Similarly, Prof, Aldus Humbledore at University of Hemsworth published his Research
Paper in 2015 titled ‘Effects of Lobanza on Humans’ the paper was published in an
independent journal named, ‘Journal of advanced sciences’ and discussed about the
various side effects of capsule over person with allergies.

7|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

 Mr. Pablo Escocar, a janitor in Government school was prone to drugs and smoking and
wanted to get rid of his addiction. Hence, one day he saw an advertisement of the
Lobanza Capsule on a banner across the road and started consuming made by the
Riverrun Medicos but couldn’t refrain himself from smoking as a consequence of which
he died after 8 days of consumption of the Capsule.

 On 22nd October,2017 all three LPT machines bought under the agreement dated 14th
August, 2017 malfunctioned due to the patent defects reported earlier. Aggrieved by all
this Mr. Tony Snark sued Mr. Steve Rovers for Fraud and initiated civil proceedings for
breach of Contact against him, furthermore Mrs. Amy Santiago also joined the suit
against Mr. Steve Rovers claiming compensation for the loss of livelihood caused to her.
Moreover few minor instances of illness were also reported during this phase among the
consumers of HPC ltd.

8|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Following issues have been framed by the Hon’ble Court for final hearing of the matter:
I. Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872?

II. Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 voidable at the option of Mr.
Tony Snark?

III. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death
of her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

IV. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the supplier and service provider of LPT
Machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of contract?

9|Page
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17

of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

It is most Humbly submitted by the Counsels for the Appellants that a clear act of Fraud has
been committed by the Respondent, Mr. Steve Rovers as defined under Section 17 of the
Indian Contract Act,1872. Section 17(2) of the Act simply states that ‘Active concealment
of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact’, comes under the purview of Fraud.
So, Section 17(2) perfectly fits upon the situations of the present case where Mr. Steve
Rovers had actively and willingly concealed the essential facts about the subject matter of
the agreement.
Furthermore, Section 17(3) states ‘ A promise made without any intention of performing it’
also comes under the purview of Fraud. In the present case, Mr. Steve Rovers, at the time of
the Agreement dated 14th August,2017 between him and HPC ltd. regarding the sale of
those 3 LPT machines to the latter for a sum of $30 million, had ensured delivery within
five days but his acts clearly indicated that he never intended to perform his promise and the
promise was made by him, just in a ‘heat of passion’ or out of excitement, as a consequence
of which he failed to deliver the machines within five days and the delivery was made by
Mr. Steve Rovers on 23rd August, 2017, i.e after 9 days of the Agreement and 4 days late
then the promised date of Delivery. However it was the Greatness of the Appellant 1, i.e,
HPC Ltd. and of Mr. Tony Snark that they unobjectionalbly and without shownig any
apprehensions as to delay in delivery accepted the machines and paid him complete agreed
amount without any negotiatuions being made, but despite the dead- honesty shown by the
Appellant 1 they were been cheated by the Fradulent act of Mr. Steve Rovers.
Moreover, the Contention of the Respondents that ‘Mere Silence as to facts likely to affect
the willingness of a person to enter into a contact is not fraud’ can’nt be upheld in this case
because the Indian Contract act, 1872 explicitly states that when ‘It is the duty of the person
keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself,, equivalent to speech’ then in that
circumstance Silence amounts to fraud. Duty to Speak arises when one Contacting party

10 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
reposes trust and confidence in the other contracting party, for instance the illustration (b)
given under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 in which, A sells his horse with
unsound mind to B, his daughter and ,due to the relation of trust and confidence between the
two Contracting parties, it would be A’s Duty to tell B about the unsoundness of Horse.
Similarly, in this case the Respondent and Mr. Tony Snark, owner of HPC Ltd. have been
childhood friends, and due to that relation Mr. Tony possesed great Trust and Confidence in
Mr. Steve Rovers, that could be proved from the facts of the case itself. Hence, due to the
Trust and confidence reposed by Mr. Tony Snark over Mr. Steve Rovers it was the duty of
the Respondent to speak, and the breach of that duty resulted in the act of fraud committed
by the Respondent. So, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Bench that the situations in
the present case completelty resembles with those given under clause 2 & 3 of Section 17 of
the Indian Contact Act, 1872, and hence fraud is committed by Mr. Steve Rovers aginst
HPC Ltd.

II. Whether the contract dated 14th August 2017 voidable at the option of Mr. Tony

Snark?

It is most Humbly submitted by the counsels for the Appellants to this Hon’ble Bench that
Since Fraud had been committed as per Section 17 of the Indian Contract act, 1872 by the
Respondent to gain consent of the Appellant 1 for the agreement dated 14th August,2017,
that’s why the agreement stands voidable at the option of the Appellant 1, whose consent
was obtained through Fraud. As Stated under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ‘
When consent to an agreement is caused by Coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, the
agreement is a contract viodable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused’.
Furthermore, the Contract also stands viodable on part of Mr. Tony Snark under Section 55
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because in business contracts time is of utmost essence to
the contract as if it isn’t met, there can be huge losses in business transactions and thus the
law permits the promise to rescind the contract and bring an action for damages.

11 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
III. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of
her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble bench that Respondent should be held liable to
compensate Appellant 2 as it was duty to take care and breach of that duty had led to the
resultant death of late Mr. Pablo Escocar, husband of Appellant 2. Despite knowing the fact
about the patent defects in the LPT machines, he mala fidely hide that crucial information from
Mr. Tony Snark that subsequently led to negative reactions in the medicines produced through
those 3 LPT machines, it is evident from the fact that during the phase between the date from
which those machines were acquired to the date on which they malfunctioned, i.e from 14th
August,2017 to 22nd october,2017 many instances of illness were reported among the
consumers of HPC ltd. Therefore, as it is well-known fact that humans can lie but
circumstances can’nt , the circumstances of the present case clearly indicates that like all the
other instances of illness reported, Mr. Pablo’s instance was also similar instance that got to a
serious level and resulted in his death. Therefoere it is submitted that the root cause that led to
the death of Mr. Escocar was the defect in the LPT machine producing the Lobanza capsule. So
on connecting all the dots of the present case, the cause of death of Apllellant 2’s husband was
the altered quality of the Lobanza capsule consumed by him, and that bad quality was the result
of the defects in the machine producing it. Furthermore, the article published in the Journal of
asnardian institute of Technology on 1st September,2017 clearly mentioned about the infirmities
of the Machine.
The Contention made by the Respondent that Plaintiff was himself at default as Mr. Pablo did’nt
quit smoking can’nt be admissible in the present case because just like the deceased many more
people suffered medical catastrophes and moreover, the respondent can’nt hide his fault that due
to his negligence the quality of the medicines was drastically affected.

12 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
IV. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the Supplier and Service Provider of LPT
Machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of Contract?

It is Humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Bench that Respondent is liable for Breach of Contract
and hence, liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark. The respondent had committed fraud in order
to gain Consent of Mr. Tony Snark as aforementioned stated in Section 17(2) and (3) of the act ,
moreover the contract also stand viodable at the option of Tony Snark under Section 55 of Indian
Contract Act,1872.
Since, those 3 LPT machines that were delivered by the respondent to Mr. Snark were defective
and therefore there was a violation of the implied condition as to quality and fitness of the goods
supplied therefore Appellant is entitled to receive back the purchase price along with the
damages under section 59 of the Sale of Goods act.

13 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that indeed Mr. Steve Rovers committed a
fraud under Section 17 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872.

In a well-known decision of House of Lords, in the case of Derry v Peek, (1889)LR 14 AC 337
Lord Herschell also said that Section 17 of the ICA, 1872 specifically describes Fraud as
‘Fraud’ means and includes any of the Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made –

(1) Knowingly

(2) without belief in its truth

(3) recklessly careless whether it be true or false.

(4)Any other act fitted to deceive

In the present case, Mr. Steve Rovers, at the time of the Agreement dated 14th August,2017
between him and HPC ltd. regarding the sale of those 3 LPT machines to the latter for a sum of
$30 million, had ensured delivery within five days but his acts clearly indicated that he never
intended to perform his promise and the promise was made by him, just in a ‘heat of passion’ or
out of excitement, as a consequence of which he failed to deliver the machines within five days
and the delivery was made by Mr. Steve Rovers on 23rd August, 2017, i.e after 9 days of the
Agreement and 4 days late then the promised date of Delivery. However it was the Greatness of
the Appellant 1, i.e, HPC Ltd. and of Mr. Tony Snark that they unobjectionalbly and without
shownig any apprehensions as to delay in delivery accepted the machines and paid him complete
agreed amount without any negotiatuions being made, Haji Ahmad Yarkhan v. Abdul Gani
Khan AIR 1937 Nag 270 but despite the dead- honesty shown by the Appellant 1 they were
been cheated by the Fradulent act of Mr. Steve Rovers.

14 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
Duty to Speak arises when one Contacting party reposes trust and confidence in the other
contracting party Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996) 3 SCC 310 for
instance the illustration (b) given under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 in which, A
sells his horse with unsound mind to B, his daughter and ,due to the relation of trust and
confidence between the two Contracting parties, it would be A’s Duty to tell B about the
unsoundness of Horse. Similarly, in this case the Respondent and Mr. Tony Snark, owner of
HPC Ltd. have been childhood friends, and due to that relation Mr. Tony possesed great Trust
and Confidence in Mr. Steve Rovers, that could be proved from the facts of the case itself.
Hence, due to the Trust and confidence reposed by Mr. Tony Snark over Mr. Steve Rovers it was
the duty of the Respondent to speak, and the breach of that duty resulted in the act of fraud
committed by the Respondent.

I.1 Defendant guilty of Fraud and not Misrepresentation

Further, it is also stated that this case is of fraud only and not of misrepresentation as
misrepresentation has been defined in Section 18 of the ICA, 1872 and subsection (3) which is
relevant and reads as Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake
as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement

There’s a very delicate difference between the section 18(3) and section 17(2) when applied to
this case as there was a deliberate concealment of facts by Mr. Steve regarding the errors in the
machines by keeping silent.

Mr. Steve per se the facts stated was well aware that there were some patent defects in the
machine which were categorically highlighted by the auditor of the company to him a week prior
to signing the agreement to sell 3 more LPT machines to HPC Ltd. Mr. Steve made a passive
concealment of a fact known to him which was integral to the whole transaction going on and
were most likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract.

Passive concealment in the present case falls similar to the case of Daiichi Sankyo Company
Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh & Ors where the Arbitral Tribunal, took the view that the
respondents cannot excuse themselves when they are found to have deliberately misled the
petitioner either by way of misinformation or withholding information. The Arbitral Tribunal
concluded that as a matter of public policy liability for fraud cannot be simply avoided by

15 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
express or implied agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal thus concluded that under Section 17 of the
ICA,1872 an act of fraud cannot be avoided by any express or implied agreement.

1.2 Silence of Mr. Steve on the irregularities discovered in the machine, it being a crucial
point of whole transaction amounted to fraud.
If a claim made is genuine at the time it is made or if a claim has not been questioned by anyone
up to the time it is made, it stands to be a genuine/true claim but, it may, because of change of
circumstances become false when acted upon by other party. In such circumstances it becomes
the duty of the person who had made the previous claims regarding the thing in question to clear
the facts to the interested party.

As in the case of With v. O’Flanagan 1936 Ch 575: (1936) 1 All ER 727 (CA) It was held that the
representation made by the defendant was intended to induce the claimant to enter into the
contract and therefore would be considered ongoing until the contract was signed. This meant
that at the time that the contract was signed, the representation was untrue. The defendant ought
to have told the claimant of the change of circumstances.

The facts of the case being to an extent in the line of the issue being discussed where Mr. Steve
initially didn’t know that there were some faults in the machines, so his initial sales of the
machine couldn’t be qualified as fraud but after the discovery of various patent defects he didn’t
disclose it to the buyers. Hence, qualifying into fraud.

1.3 The trust laid upon Mr. Steve Rovers by Stark was misused.

While the plaintiff had made complete reliance on his friend and even turned down the idea of
examining the machines which was offeredto him by the defendant’s partner thinking it as a
preposterous idea to doubt his childhood friend. Also, that plaintiff earlier had brought a machine
and had been using it without facing any issues with it thus eliminating any suspicion or curiosity
to enquire about any possible defects. The machine had also turned out to be very good in
markets therefore any reasonable person would have assumed that the machines were error-free.
The doctrine of contracts uberrimaefideican thus be invoked in the following case. Carter v
Boehm [1766] (Kings Bench); Duty to speak.

16 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
Further it is submitted that the degree of trust can also be seen inthe fact that despite the delay in
the delivery of the machines was of 4 days, later than the agreed time which was set in the
contract the plaintiff accepted the delivery and immediately made the payment of $3 million
without any apprehensions as to the same.

However, it is an important essential element of a fraud that the party deceived must have
suffered some loss because generally there can be no fraud without damage and there can be
no damages without an injury Royscot Trust Ltd. v. Rogerson, (1992) 2 QB 297: (1991) 3
WLR 57: (1991) 3 AllER 294 (CA). The damage or injury can be some loss in terms of
money or money’s worth or some other detriment Sheikh JaruBepari v. AG Peters AIR
1942 Cal 493. It is submitted to the hon’ble Court that the both the plaintiffs have suffered
immense loss because of the fraudulent act of the defendant.

2. WHETHER THE CONTRACT DATED 14TH AUGUST 2017 VOIDABLE AT

THE OPTION OF MR. TONY SNARK?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the contract is voidable at the
instance of Mr. Tony Snark as he is the person who has been defrauded by concealment
of facts pivotal to the performance of the LPT machines which were the object of
consideration in this transaction. Section 19 of the ICA defines: Voidability of
agreements without free consent:- when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion,
fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party
whose consent was so caused. A party to contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or
misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and
that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations
made had been true.
Exception - If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent
within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party
whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary
diligence.

17 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
Illustrations –
(a) A, intending to deceive B, falsely represents that five hundred mounds of indigo are
made annually at A’s factory, and thereby induces B to buy the factory. The contract is
voidable at the option of B
(b) A, by a misrepresentation, leads B erroneously to believe that five hundred mounds
of indigo are made annually at A’s factory. B examines the accounts of the factory, which
show that only four hundred mounds of indigo have been made. After this B buys the
factory. The contract is not voidable on account of A’s misrepresentation.

Mr. Snark acted in good faith

Mr. Snark who had been a childhood friend of Mr. Steve had utmost faith in his friend
and relying upon him he had even declined the offer to check the machines. The non-
disclosure of the infirmities in the machines made Mr. Snark suffer a huge blow on the
revenues he used to earn because of which he being the aggrieved party needs to be the
person to decidewhether he wants to be in the contract anymore or not. The same was
also cited in the judgment in the case of Official Receiver, Jhansi vs Jugal Kishore
Lachhi Ram Jaina1 in which a double bench stated that: The reason why
under Section 19 an agreement obtained by fraud has been kept voidable at the option of
the person-defrauded and not wholly void is obvious. The idea was to put the person
defrauded in a better position than he would have been if the agreement was void. It is
clear that if an agreement is void the person defrauded cannot insist upon the fraudulent
party to perform his part of the contract and the contract would be void both for the
fraudulent party as also the defrauded party.

3. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of
her husband and her consequent loss of livelihood?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble bench that Respondent should be held liable to
compensate Appellant 2 as it was duty to take care and breach of that duty had led to the
resultant death of late Mr. Pablo Escocar, husband of Appellant 2. Despite knowing the fact

18 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
about the patent defects in the LPT machines, he mala fidely hide that crucial information from
Mr. Tony Snark that subsequently led to negative reactions in the medicines produced through
those 3 LPT machines, it is evident from the fact that during the phase between the date from
which those machines were acquired to the date on which they malfunctioned, i.e from 14th
August,2017 to 22nd october,2017 many instances of illness were reported among the consumers
of HPC ltd. Therefore, as it is well-known fact that humans can lie but circumstances can’nt , the
circumstances of the present case clearly indicates that like all the other instances of illness
reported, Mr. Pablo’s instance was also similar instance that got to a serious level and resulted in
his death. Therefoere it is submitted that the root cause that led to the death of Mr. Escocar was
the defect in the LPT machine producing the Lobanza capsule. So on connecting all the dots of
the present case, the cause of death of Apllellant 2’s husband was the altered quality of the
Lobanza capsule consumed by him, and that bad quality was the result of the defects in the
machine producing it. Furthermore, the article published in the Journal of asnardian institute of
Technology on 1st September,2017 clearly mentioned about the infirmities of the Machine. The
traditional approach was that once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant
was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage
might be. In Re Polemis while docked, workers employed to unload the ship negligently dropped
a plank into the hold, which struck something, causing a spark that ignited petrol vapour lying in
the hold. The fire destroyed the whole ship. The Lords held that although the fire was not a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plank falling, there had been a breach of the duty of
care and all damage representing a direct consequence of the negligent act was recoverable. It
was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant would be liable for the full
extent of the harm. That particular consequences are possible does not make them reasonably
foreseeable. This will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links
constituting the chain. The more links, the less likely that consequence may be considered
reasonably foreseeable.

 Greenland v Chaplin  (1850) 5 Ex 243, Pollock CB advocated a foreseeability test for

remoteness
 Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company (1870–71) LR 6 CP 14,
seven members of Exchequer Court uphold directness rule

19 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
 Re Polemis & Furniss, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560
 Glasgow Corp v Muir  [1943] AC 448

Here, Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her husband and
her consequent loss of livelihood because Mr. Pablo was the sole bread-earner for their family.
Thus, there is a nervous shock suffered by Mrs. Amy Santiago. Nervous Shock is referred as
according to Tort Law, which states that “A Nervous Shock is a psychiatric illness or injury
inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Often it is a
psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an accident, for example an injury caused to one's
parents or spouse”.

In the case of Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669. It was held that Mere fright not followed by
consequent physical damage will not support an action, but if it is followed by consequent
physical damage, then, if the fright was the natural result of the defendants' negligence, an action
lies, and the physical damage is not too remote to support it.

In the case of Hinz v Berry (1970) 2 QB 40. It was held that : She was entitled to recover as she
had demonstrated a recognised psychiatric condition as opposed to feelings of grief and sorrow.

The Contention made by the Respondent that Plaintiff was himself at default as Mr. Pablo did’nt
quit smoking can’nt be admissible in the present case because just like the deceased many more
people suffered medical catastrophes and moreover, the respondent can’nt hide his fault that due
to his negligence the quality of the medicines was drastically affected.

4. Whether Mr. Steve Rovers, being the Supplier and Service Provider of LPT
Machines, is liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of Contract?

It is Humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Bench that Respondent is liable for Breach of Contract
and hence, liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark. The respondent had committed fraud in order
to gain Consent of Mr. Tony Snark as aforementioned stated in Section 17(2) and (3) of the act ,
moreover the contract also stand viodable at the option of Tony Snark under Section 55 of Indian
Contract Act,1872.

20 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia
Since, those 3 LPT machines that were delivered by the respondent to Mr. Snark were defective
and therefore there was a violation of the implied condition as to quality and fitness of the goods
supplied therefore Appellant is entitled to receive back the purchase price along with the
damages under section 59 of the Sale of Goods act.
A. BREACH OF CONDITION AND WARRANTY:

Pursuant to sale of goods act 1930 in contract of sale, unless the circumstances of the contract
show otherwise there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that he has right to sell the
goods and that, in the case of agreement to sell, he will have right to sell the goods at the time
when property is to pass.2 In other words, unless the seller has a right to pass the general
property to the buyer, he will be in breach of section 14(1) of the act. if a person sells goods, he
is deemed to have the property therein. If he does not have that which he purports to sell, he
does not sell at all, this is the fundamental feature of the sale. In the contract for sale it is
constantly understood that the seller undertakes that the commodity he sells is his own3

Seller may in some circumstances be guilty of breach of section 14(1) although he had power to
transfer the goods.

If a claim made is genuine at the time it is made or if a claim has not been questioned by anyone
up to the time it is made, it stands to be a genuine/true claim but, it may, because of change of
circumstances become false when acted upon by other party. In such circumstances it becomes
the duty of the person who had made the previous claims regarding the thing in question to clear
the facts to the interested party.

As in the case of With v. O’Flanagan it was held that the representation made by the defendant
was intended to induce the claimant to enter into the contract.

SO it is humbly submitted that the Respondent is liable for breach of Contract and hence a Sum
of $100 million is recoverable from him as damages towards the Appellants.

2
14(a) ibid.
3
Walker v. harris.

21 | P a g e
 Faculty Of Law (Intra) Moot Court Competition , 2018
Jamia Millia Islamia

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court and declare:

1. That Fraud was committed by Mr. Steve Rovers under Section 17 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.

2. That the contract dated 14th August,2017 is voidable at the option of Mr. Tony Snark .

3. That Mr. Steve Rovers is liable to compensate Amy Santiago for the death of her husband
and her consequent loss of livelihood.

4. That Mr. Steve Rovers, being the Supplier and Service Provider of LPT Machines, is
liable to compensate Mr. Tony Snark for breach of Contract.

AND

Pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice, and
good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Counsels for the petitioner shall duty bound forever
pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/-______________________

Counsels for the Appellant

22 | P a g e