Final 4 Repsondent

The next issue in hand is whether the respondent has breached the agreement ,
thereby entitling the claimant to seek damages?

The counsel world like to submit that the very foundation of any contractual
relationship - trust, commitment, and the equitable exchange of value. The
RESPONDENT believes in the sanctity of its obligations. But what happens
when the other party fails to uphold its end of the bargain?
The counsel for the respondent shall demonstrate the same into 3 broad
arguments.
1- Parties agreed on reciprocated obligation
2- The claimant has mis represented the abilities
3- The one who seeks justice must approach with clean hands
Firstly, it is humbly submitted that the respondent has always been dedicated to
the principle of fairness and transparency, it must be noted by the tribunal that
all obligation by both the parties must be met.
It must be noted that Sir Fredrick Pollock’s words- “consideration is an act or
forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the
promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is
enforceable.”
It submittes the legal provison of indovain contact act 1872 section37.
Obligation of parties to contracts.—The parties to a contract must either
perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such
performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of this Act,
or of any other law.
Sticking to this section, Further it must be noted clause 5.2 of our agreement
annexure-a, the RESPONDENT’s financial commitment hinged entirely on the
CLAIMANT’s promise to deliver this precise technological expertise.
It must be noted that since the foundation of every contact is QUID PRO QUO,
in the instant case the claimant has breached the principle by not fulfilling its
obligation.
Furthermore, addressing the second sub point in front of this tribunal, it is

humbly submitted that according to sec 18 of Indovian Contact act 1872.
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage
of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading
another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
With this definition in mind, I'd like to draw attention to an elemental principle
that holds deep significance in our quest for justice: that no party should come
before this esteemed Tribunal with unclean hands. While the CLAIMANT puts
forth allegations of breach, it becomes our solemn duty to identify the genuinely
aggrieved party.
It is humbly submitted before this honourable tribunal that in Venture Global
Engg. Llc. v. Tech Mahindra Limited, (2018) as stated in this case It is
respectfully submitted that once the fraud and misrepresentation are
proved, the whole arbitral process becomes void ab initio.
Firstly, allow me to address the contention raised by AI Innovations regarding
the purported losses of $500 million, attributing this to an oversight in a press
conference where Artificiana's CEO did not specifically highlight their
contribution. It is imperative to underscore that mere omission or diminishing
acknowledgment during a press event cannot be construed as a breach of
contract or a deliberate act of misrepresentation.
Moreover, demonstrating our commitment to fairness and transparency, the
RESPONDENT promptly acknowledged this oversight and took corrective
measures. An additional statement was released to the public, crediting AI
Innovations for their invaluable contribution to the project. This act, esteemed
members of the Tribunal, signifies our genuine intent to rectify an inadvertent
lapse and to maintain the integrity of our collaborative spirit.
However, as we traverse the path of misrepresentation, it's paramount to pivot
our focus to a matter of deeper concern. The real shadow of misrepresentation,
ironically, looms over the RESPONDENT. There are credible indications
suggesting that the CLAIMANT might have embellished their capabilities,
enticing the RESPONDENT into this collaboration under potentially false
pretenses. This act, whether done inadvertently or intentionally, doesn't just
question the contract's provisions, but it threatens the very foundation of trust
upon which this collaboration was built.
Adding to sub point 2, esteemed artribrator tribunal, due to that
misrepresentation the damages to the parties in terms of reputation , the way
claimant in a way harass and torn the image of the respondent in the business
filed! Shouldn’t it be look into?
The counsel would like to direct you to the section 73.Compensation for loss
or damage caused by breach of contract.—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.
It is submitted as decided in case Arbitrators may also award interests on

damages. In certain cases, Indovian courts have also recognised the powers of
arbitral tribunals to grant punitive damages towards mental tension, agony,
harassment etc.
I like to draw your attention t another clause of our agreement clause 20.2
which states Upon successful completion of the project and full receipt of all
payments due under this Collaboration Agreement, AI Innovation shall
transfer and assign to Artificiana all rights, title, and interest in and to any
IP created, developed, or otherwise arising from the project, including but
not limited to patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and any
associated moral rights.
It make liable the claimant to all ip rights which have been created or developed
like your patent, copyright , trademark and etcc, but respondent here stand
before this esteemed tribunal referring the same that claimant here did not stand
to fulfil their liabilities.
Adding some sense to my this argument it would like to address an article in a
respected magazine, titled ‘AI Arm-Wrestle: Tech Titans Grapple for
Supremacy’, providing subtle confirmation. The article subtly explored the
implications of AI Innovations' potential patent endeavours and the ongoing
dispute between the two companies.
Claimant does not have any ip right after the completion of the contact or even
during it. The contract still subsite and have not got terminated an does by doing
this act will cause a breach of the clauses by the claimant itself.
Ending my this sub point with legal provision of indovian contract act section
65. Obligation of person who has received advantage under void
agreement, or contract that becomes void.—When an agreement is
discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who
has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to
restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he
received it
Moving on to my last point of this issue an would like draw attention to an
elemental principle that holds deep significance in our quest for justice: that no
party should come before this esteemed Tribunal with unclean hands. While the
CLAIMANT puts forth allegations of breach, it becomes our solemn duty to
identify the genuinely aggrieved party.
The jurisprudential tenet ‘Nullus Commodum Capere Protect De Injuria
Sua Propria’ aptly captures the essence of our argument. Simply put, no one
should benefit from their own wrong.
It is humbly submitted that the suppression of material facts is against the
principles of law. The party guilty of withholding the correct facts should
not be entitled to any benefits, as it is considered that such a party does not
approach the court with clean hands as discussed in Raj Kumar Soni v.
State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635. By mere stating that RESPONDENT
committed breach does not itself satisfies the claims. It must be ruled out at the
discretion of tribunal while assessing the real aggravated party.
If the tribunal is satisfied with the argument for issue 4, counsel would like to
move to the last issue.

Final 4 Repsondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final 4 Repsondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final 4 Repsondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The next issue in hand is whether the respondent has breached the agreement ,

thereby entitling the claimant to seek damages?

Furthermore, addressing the second sub point in front of this tribunal, it is

It is submitted as decided in case Arbitrators may also award interests on

You might also like