Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

TEAM CODE: 14

IN THE HON’ABLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHNAD, INDIA

(Under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Court 1908 Read with Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code 1908)
Civil Dispute

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ANISH GIRI ….PLAINTIFF
VS.
DEEP BLUE PVT. LTD. ….RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLANTIFF

[The Memorandum has been prepared for Respondent: DEEP BLUE PVT. LTD. upon
submission before the honourable bench.]

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 1|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................3
Index of Authorities..................................................................................................................4
Cases.....................................................................................................................................4
Books....................................................................................................................................4
Statues Referred....................................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACT..........................................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.......................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................9
ISSUE ONE..........................................................................................................................9
ISSUE TWO.........................................................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................10
ISSUE 1..............................................................................................................................10
Whether the contract between ANISH GIRI and DEEP BLUE PVT. Ltd. Is a valid
contract?..........................................................................................................................10
It is a not a valid contract because the acceptance of the contract was never conveyed to the
company..............................................................................................................................10
It is not a valid contract because the valid consideration was not made by the claimant.....10
ISSUE 2..............................................................................................................................11
(A)Whether DEEP BLUE PVT.LTD. is liable to refund Rs. 250000 to Anish Giri?..........11
2.1 Company is not liable to pay the full refund because they never received it.................11
2.2 COMPANY IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION UNDER THE
BREACH OF CONTRACT............................................................................................12
2.3 COMPANY DEMANDS PROTECTION UNDER THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE 5.3
........................................................................................................................................12
(B)Whether Anish Giri has to make another payment of Rs 250000 to activate the
ALPHA ZERO engine?...................................................................................................13
Prayer......................................................................................................................................14

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 2|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

List of Abbreviations

para : Paragraph
Pvt. : Private
Ltd : Limited
Hon’ble : Honourable
v. : versus
₹/Rs. : Rupees
A.I.R : All India Reporter
Q.B. : Queen’s Bench Division
Co. : Company
ILR : Indian Law Reports
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
LR : Law Reports

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 3|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

Index of Authorities

Cases
1. Republic Medico Surgical Co. v. Union Of India A.I.R. 1980 Karn.
168……………………………………………………………………………………10
2. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1893) 1 QB
256……………………………………………………………………………...….…10
3. Durga Prasad v Baldeo, ILR (1881) 3 All 221…………………..
…………………………………………………………..……11
4.Parker v South Eastern Railway Co, (1877) LR 2 CPD 416 (CA)……………...
………………………………………………………………...…13
5. Gautam Constructions v National bank for agriculture and rural development,
(2000) 6 SCC 519…………… ……………………………………………………13
6.Parsons (H) (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co, 1978 QB
791…………………………………………………………………………………….13

Books
1. AVATAR SINGH, LAW OF CONTRACT & SPECIFIC RELIEF, (12th Ed, Eastern Book
Company, 2017)
2. POLLOCK & MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, (R. Yashod Vardhan, 15th Ed,
LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, 2018)
3. H. K. SAHARAY DR., TEXTBOOK ON LAW OF CONTRACT, (2 nd Ed, Universal
Law House, 2016)
4. R. K. BANGIA, DR., INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, (14th Ed, Allahabad Law Agency, 2015

Statues Referred

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Other Authorities

1. WWW.SCCONLINE.COM
2. CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY
3. MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 4|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff in this case filed an appeal in the Honourable High Court of Jharkhand under
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 read with section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code.
However, the respondent reserves the right to dispute the jurisdiction invoked by the
petitioner.

The Facts, Issues and Argument before the court are presented in this memorandum.

Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 states that

a) Save were otherwise expressly provided in the body of this code or any other law for the
time being in force an appeal shall lie from a vary decree passed by any court authorised to
hear appeals from the decisions of such court.
b) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed Ex-parte.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 5|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF FACT

PART-I

1. Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. is a Mumbai based company which has emerged as the
leading company in manufacturing chess engines with neural networks which
assists top chess players of the world with their game preparation. The company
has developed and brought into the market its latest engine ‘Alpha Zero’ in 17th
august, 2021. The company was known for its reliability and attending to its
customer needs.

PART- II

2. Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. started selling ‘Alpha Zero’ from its online website store
“www.deepblue.net/store” at a cost of ₹ 2,50,000. Once an order would be placed,
the customer would receive the chess engine on a hard drive delivered to his home
with a unique activation key, which would have to be put in the payment portal in
the website and once the payment was made, the activation key would be activated
and the user would be able to use the chess engine.

PART- III

3. Anish Giri placed the order for ‘Alpha Zero’ and filled up the delivery form on the
website, with his address, phone number and other related information on 14th
December, 2021. The ‘Alpha Zero’ hard drive was delivered to Anish on the 17th
December, 2021 and on the same day he made the payment of ₹ 2,50,000 by using
the unique activation key on the payment portal in the website. The activation key
did not activated even after the payment. Anish contacted Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. And
was assured that there may have been a technical glitch and the issue would be
resolved. On 19th December, 2021, Anish was informed that no payment from his
activation key or bank account has been received by the company and was
requested to make the payment of ₹ 2,50,000 again to activate the hard drive
engine. Anish refused and demanded either his money to be refunded or the
activation key to be activated. Deep Blue refused the same and stated that any
refund was not permitted according to their terms and conditions which were in a
hyperlink stating ‘TERMS & CONDITIONS’ above the ‘PLACE ORDER’ button
on the DEEP BLUE website store. Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. was informed by their IT
Team on 23rd of December, 2021 that there might have been a security breach in

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 6|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

their website payment portal by altering the account details from an anonymous
“Mr. Dodgy Carlsen” and approximate ₹ 30,00,000 might have misdirected.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 7|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

4. Anish Giri filed a suit against Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. on 21st December, 2021 in the
Civil Court of Jharkhand which ruled in favour of Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. and ordered
Anish to pay ₹ 2,50,000 for activation of the ‘Alpha Zero’ engine. Aggrieved by
this, Anish Giri filed a appeal before the honorable High Court of Jharkhand
claiming refund of the ₹2.50,000 or the activation of his ‘Alpha Zero’ engine.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 8|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:- Whether the contract between Anish giri and Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. is a valid
contract?

ISSUE 2:- (A) Whether DEEP BLUE PVT.LTD. is liable to refund ₹ 250000 to
Anish Giri?

(B) Whether Anish Giri has to make another payment of Rs 250000 to activate the
ALPHA ZERO engine?

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 9|Page

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE ONE
THE CONTRACT BETWEEEN ANISH GIRI AND DEEP BLUE IS NOT A
VALID CONTRACT.

There is no valid contract between Anish Giri and Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. Firstly, for a
contract to be valid, the consideration should reach the company Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd.
Secondly, in this case, the company never received the consideration of the amount of
₹ 2,50,000 from Anish Giri. Any agreement made without consideration is void.
Without agreement, there is no legally enforceable contract. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted before the honourable court that the contract is not valid due to the absence
of consideration.

ISSUE TWO
(A)DEEP BLUE PVT. LTD IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND RS. 2,50,000 TO
ANISH GIRI

There was no failure in the discharge of obligations of the contract by the Deep Blue
Pvt. Ltd. Deep Blue company completed the promise of delivering the hard drive and
activation key to the Anish Giri’s address but the company never received the amount
of ₹ 2,50,000. Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. did not failed in the discharge of obligations of the
contact as they did not received any consideration. So, the company did not activate
the key. Hence, the company is not liable to refund ₹ 2,50,000 to Anish Giri. Here in
this case, the company has taken every due care of the security in their payment portal
and there was no negligence on their part. So here the case in hand, the Deep Blue Pvt.
Ltd claims protection under the exemption clause. Therefore, it is humbly submitted
before the honourable court that Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. Should not be held liable to
refund Rs. 2,50,00 to Anish Giri.

(B)Anish Giri has to make another payment of ₹ 2,50,000 to activate the

‘ALPHA ZERO’ engine

Anish Giri failed in delivering Rs. 2,50,000 to Deep Blue company. Further for the
sake of arguments, Anish Giri was familiar with all the terms and conditions of the
company for purchasing ‘Alpha Zero’ software, yet, he offered the company for

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 10 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

buying ‘Alpha Zero’. The Honourable Civil court of Jharkhand, India has already
ruled in favour of the Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. and ordered Anish Giri to ₹ 2,50,000 for
the activation of the alpha zero engine. The Respondent, herein requests the same
before this honourable court.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 11 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
Whether the contract between ANISH GIRI and DEEP BLUE PVT. Ltd. Is a
valid contract?
For a contract to be legally valid, there should offer, acceptance and consideration.

It is a not a valid contract because the acceptance of the contract was

never conveyed to the company.
1.1.1 The contract is completed when an offer is accepted 1 : it is the acceptance that
gives rise to the cause of action and not merely the making of an offer2.
1.1.2 Here, the display of Alpha Zero on the company website was a general offer
which can be accepted by anybody3. The offer was for the selling of alpha zero
at the price of Rs 2500004. Placing the order and delivery of the hard drive
was only the first part of the acceptance. The second part was to put the unique
activation key and pay the price which the plaintiff never did.
1.1.3 So here the second part of the acceptance was never communicated 5 to the
company so they cannot claim a valid contract under the acceptance of the
offer.

It is not a valid contract because the valid consideration was not

made by the claimant
1.1.4 the consideration is the price of the promise 6. When, at the desire of the
promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing,
or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing,
something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the
promise7.
1.1.5 Here in this case the Deep Blue never received the consideration of Rs. 250000
by Anish Giri to complete the contract and give access to the alpha zero.
1.1.6 It is clear that anything done that is not at the desire of the promisor doesn’t
constitute to consideration8.
1
Section 2(b), The Indian Contract Act 1872
2
Republic Medico Surgical Co. v. Union Of India A.I.R. 1980 Karn. 168
3
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1893) 1 QB 256
4
Moot Proposition, para 2
5
Section 4, The Indian Contract Act 1872
6
AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 104 (12th ed. 2017)
7
Section 2(d), The Indian Contract Act 1872
8
Durga Prasad v Baldeo, ILR (1881) 3 All 221

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 12 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

1.1.7 So here if the consideration never reached the company through the website
payment portal9, there is no consideration for the contract to be valid.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the contract
is not valid due to the lack of consideration by Anish Giri.

ISSUE 2
(A)Whether DEEP BLUE PVT.LTD. is liable to refund Rs. 250000 to
Anish Giri?
No, the deep blue company is not liable to refund the money to the petitioner because
from petitioner side every contractual obligation was not complete.

2.1 Company is not liable to pay the full refund because they never
received it
2.1.1 “If it appears from the nature of the case that it was the intention of the parties to
any contract that any promise contained in it should be performed by the promisor
himself, such promise must be performed by the promisor. In other cases, the
promisor or his representatives may employ a competent person to perform it”10.

2.1.2 Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. promised on their part to enable the activation key after the
user places the order then the customer receives the chess engine on a hard drive
delivered to his home then he would be obliged to put the unique activation key in the
payment and pay the company i.e. for their chess engine ‘Alpha Zero’ an amount of
₹2,50,000 as to require the company be completing its reciprocal promise.

2.1.3 Here deep blue company completed its first reciprocal promise of delivering the
hard drive and activation key to the plaintiff address on 17th dec 202111.here the
company completed its first promises but Anish Giri. In return was unable to
successfully complete its part of the promise therefore the company is not liable to pay
a any refund to the petitioner.

2.2 COMPANY IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION UNDER

THE BREACH OF CONTRACT
2.2.1 “Where the order in which reciprocal promises are to be performed is expressly
fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order; and where the order is not

9
Moot Proposition, para 4
10
Section 40, The Indian Contract Act 1872
11
Moot Proposition, para 3

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 13 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

expressly fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order which the nature
of the transaction requires.12”

2.2.2 According to the facts of the case the original chronology should have been that
once the hard drive was delivered and payment was made, the activation key would be
activated and the user would be able to use the chess engine irrespectively 13. But
rather what happened was after the company delivered the Hard drive containing the
chess engine but we never received the payment from Anish Giri.

2.2.3 For claiming the compensation under the breach of contract from a party
according to the “When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such
breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract,
compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in
the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they
made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.”

2.2.4 As we stated in the para 2.2.2 Deep Blue Pvt Ltd delivered the hard drive and
Anish Giri didn’t made the further process of payment. So here company is at the loss.
The Company make all the expenses of shipping the drive. Why should the company
pay the compensation if there was no valid contract(1.2). If there was no contract how
can there be a compensation under breach of contract.

2.3 COMPANY CLAIMS PROTECTION UNDER THE EXEMPTION

CLAUSE 5.3
2.3.1 Where a written contract is signed by the party accepting, he becomes bound by
all his terms, whether he has read it or not 14(page 74). It is wholly immaterial that he
has read the agreement and does not know the content 15.The arbitrators and courts
must adhere to contract terms16.The defendants are liable for the damage which can be
reasonably foreseen at the date of the breach17.

2.3.2 Here in the facts of the case the company has taken every due care of the
security in their payment portal and there was no negligence on their part. So here the

12
Section 52, The Indian Contract Act 1872
13
Moot Proposition, para 2
14
AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 74 (12th ed. 2017)
15
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co, (1877) LR 2 CPD 416 (CA)
16
Gautam Constructions v National bank for agriculture and rural development, (2000) 6 SCC 519
17
Parsons (H) (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co, 1978 QB 791

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 14 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

company claims protection under the exemption clause because they didn’t foresee
the breach as a possible consequence.

(B)Whether Anish Giri has to make another payment of Rs 250000 to activate

the ALPHA ZERO engine?
3.1 Anish Giri failed in delivering Rs. 2,50,000 to Deep Blue company. Further for the
sake of arguments, Anish Giri was familiar with all the terms and conditions of the
company for purchasing ‘Alpha Zero’ software, yet, he offered the company for
buying ‘Alpha Zero’. The company did not forced Anish Giri to accept their terms and
conditions. The terms and conditions were in a hyperlink stating ‘TERMS &
CONDITIONS’ above the ‘PLACE ORDER’ button on the DEEP BLUE website.
Anybody could easily access the site and read the policies of the company before
placing the order for purchase of Alpha Zero Engine. When Anish Giri filled the form,
it is assumed that Anish Giri agrees with all the terms and conditions of the company.
The Honourable Civil court of Jharkhand, India has already ruled in favour of the
Deep Blue Pvt. Ltd. and ordered Anish Giri to ₹ 2,50,000 for the activation of the
alpha zero engine. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that
he Respondent, herein requests the same that Anish Giri has to make another payment
to activate the Alpha Zero..

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 15 | P a g e

 Vidhitva 2022: Litigiosus Fresher’s Moot Court Competition

Prayer

WHERFORE, in the light of the issue raised, arguments and authorities cited may this
hon’ble be pleased to:

1. Declare, that the contract was not a valid contract.

2. Held, that company is not liable to pay any refund or give access of alpha zero
to the plaintiff.
3. Held , that Anish Giri has to make another payment of Rs. 2,50,000 to activate
the Alpha Zero engine.

And/Or

-Pass any other order, which it deems fit in the interests of justice, Equity and Good
Conscience-

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED ON

BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.

Sd/-

……………………

(Councle For the “Respondent”)

Place: Ranchi, Jharkhand

Dated: March 06, 2022

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent 16 | P a g e