A. The respondent, Ms. Ishika is not liable.
The council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Ms. Ishika, being of the age of 17 years(at the time of framing the contract)
was a minor and that’s why not competent1 to contract under the Indian Contract act, 1872.
The contract between the Appellant and the Respondent is void ab initio, as respondent was a
minor at time of signing the contract. Since minor entered into this contract which makes the
contract void agreement and hence, incompetent to contract.
Sec. 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that-
“All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void”.2
In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P3
It was held that contract can only be made by major and contract by a minor is a void contract
in accordance with Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The age of majority of a person can be determined as “according to the law to which he is
subjected”.
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose4 is a landmark case covering the scope minor’s
agreement. In India, a contract with a minor is void ab initio. In this case it was held that
minors are legally incompetent to give their assent , and thus the contract with the minor is
void ab initio.
In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat5 the case is of a 16 year old Hindu widow. It was held that
“her capacity to contract shall be regulated by Indian Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her
domicile and she being a minor was not liable under the bond.”6
According to Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Every person is competent to
contract to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject,
1
Section 11 of Indian contract Act, 1872
2
Section 10 of Indian Contract Act,1872
3
In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of U.P
4
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1908) 30 Cal 539
5
(1894) 19 Bom 697
6
Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.
and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subjected.7
Thus, the person incompetent to contract are:
a)Minors,
b) Person of unsound mind, and
c) Person disqualified by law to which they are subject8
AGE OF MAJORITY UNDER THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.
Section 3 of the Indian majority Act, 18759 provides that a person is deemed to have attained
the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years.
Thus, the council on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully presents before
this hon’ble court that as Ms. Ishika is of 17 years, she is a minor and thus incompetent to
contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham10 it was held that, “as a minor cannot enter into a
contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.”
In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit11, it was held that, “a contract is
specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under the contract. Even
though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor can validly enter into
contract on his behalf.”12
In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI13 it was held that, “a contract must be entered
into by a person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the contract will be void
7
Section 11 of Indian Contract act , 1872
8
AVTAR SINGH, Contract & Specific Relief, 153 (2017).
9
Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875
‘ Age of majority of persons domiciled in India —
1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen
years and not before.
2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day
and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that
day.’
10
AIR 1956 AP.
11
AIR 1960 Cal 65.
12
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
13
(2008) 8 SCC 205.
as an agreement which is not enforceable under law is void. Thus, minors cannot enter
into a contract.”14
14
Supra 5.
3. The defendant is liable to pay damages
The council on behalf of the Appellant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that the respondent is liable to pays damages of two lakhs fifty thousand
(2,50,000) to plaintiff as the defendant falsely represent as a major and enter into contract
with company. And later on after attending the age of majority refused to submit the
prototype on the given date & instead asked for extension and an additional money of Rs
40,000 all of these shows the clear intention on the part of ishika that she was willing to
enter into a valid contract & intended to be legally bound by his part.
Moreover, we can claim that there has been a breach of contract on the part of the
defendant.
A cause of breach of contract claim has four elements:
1. The existence of a contract;
2. Performance by plaintiff
3. Failure to perform the contract by the defendant.
4. Resulting damages to the plaintiff.
Therefore, there was a breach of contract.
The plaintiff refuse to extend the time and had already spent a lot on promotional activities
denied extension to the defendant.
Since Ishika was well versed about the fact the company is in extreme need of prototype and
had spent a large amount. This shows that the special circumstances are already within the
knowledge of the party breaking the contract, the formality of communicating them may not
be necessary was ruled in Simpson v . London & north western railway Co .
Sec. 73 in the ICA, 1872
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
1.In McDermott International Inc. V. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.15
It was stated that an invoice drawn only in a claim made in terms of the contract. For
raising a claim of breach of contract no invoice is to be drawn. A claim for overhead cost
which results in decrease in profit or management cost is a claim for damages
2. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh16
It was stated that the word compensation is a very wide connotation. It may constitute
actual loss and may expect to compensation for physical mental or even emotional
suffering insult, injury or even loss
The case was cited in the following cases
1. Haryana urban development authority v tilak raj ranga17
2. Ghaziabad development authority v vidyawati18
3. Haryana development authority v. sumanbansal19
The plaintiff is entitled to special damages. Since the promotion related activities were
basis of the assumption that the prototype would be ready on the given date & there is no
way the company could have thought an extension for 15 days would be asked one day
before the submission date of the prototype . the company not only lost the money
invested in the app but also the amount spent in promotional activities but also loss of a
possible revenue that would have been earned if the prototype would had been made
available to the company on the given date . thus calculating the amount Rs 2,50,000 is
just a fair compensation for the plaintiff.
Time is the essence of contract there is no way the company could have anticipated any
possible delay one day before the date of completion & that too a delay of 15 days. Def.
clearly hid the fact of his inability to complete the prototype & if he had informed the
company further expenses in promotion & other app related activities would not have
occurred, not to mention the loss of goodwill of the firm in the market , it takes years for
a firm to build goodwill in the market place the failure of the defendant to complete the
prototype made the company look incompetent in front of the its customers and the
15
(2006) 11 SCC 181.
16
( 2004) 5 SCC 65.
17
(2005)5 SCC 573.
18
(2005) SCC 65.
19
(2005) 9 SCC 4.
competitors can utilise the scenario to take over market share of the plaintiff & thus it
should be on the defendant to compensate the company for the damages occurred due to
him hiding the facts related to completion of the job assigned to him & also She was an
adult at the time when he hid the facts & She cannot plead negligence as law & says its
assumed that every adult has knowledge of the consequences of his activities & thus it is
prayed that the plaintiff receives compensation for the damages incurred by him due to
the negligence of the defendant.
The following cases can be referred where due to non performance of contract on time
compensation was awarded to the plaintiff
1. Gauri Shankar Prasad v. Brahma Nandsingh20
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ruchi Printers21
PRAYER
In light of law issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited, the counsel for the
Plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge by appropriate order or
direction, hold & declare:
1. that, the formation of a valid contract took place.
2. that, the defendant had breached the contract so formed. & that the defendant must be held
liable for the distress caused by them.
3. that, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. &that, the defendant must pay Rs 2,50,000 for
damages.
20
(2008) 8 SCC 287.
21
(2016)12 SCC 628.
3. THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.
From the arguments of the previous issues brought up by the counsel for the
Defendant, it can be concluded that:
• The suit is not maintainable as it does not lie under the jurisdiction of the high
court, by view of Sec. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Sec. 10 and Sec. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that the Defendant
can’t be made liable as she was an infant, or incompetent to contract while contract
was signed and thus, contract is not valid and doesn’t comes within the ambit of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Consequently, making the contract void ab initio, and thus cannot be enforced by
either party. Since, the above issues clearly indicate that the suit is not maintainable
and the contract is void ab initio clearly indicating that there was never a contract in
existence between the parties, the issue for claiming damages and recovery by the
Plaintiff is simply nullified.
By referring to the matrix of facts, the Plaintiff had a major policies of not entering
into any contract with minors. Thus the facts shows that the Plaintiff had some
personal gain by not following the policy since the facts indicate that the company
was in extreme need of the protoype and also had an ulterior motive. The Defendant
was just a prodigy in the field of computer science and in usual situations, these sorts
of issues regarding hiring of personnel or outsourcing of certain projects are matters
dealt with by a specific department of the company like a social media department
and not by the top-level management of the company. In the instant case, the
interview was conducted directly by the Vice-President, this further emphasises that
the company was in extreme need of the prototype.
Later, the Defendant, upon realizing that he won’t be able to submit the prototype on
time on 21st april 2021, asked for an extension of time up to 5th May 2019. This
clearly shows that she was still diligently working over the project but the Plaintiff
doesn’t provide more time and additional sum of money (40,000).As the Plaintiff
doesn’t provided money for the making of prototype this shows that the plaintiff
prevents, or makes it impossible for the defendant to perform his part of obligation,
that’s why defendant himself has the option of voiding the contract.
Plaintiffs waited for 62 days post the original deadline before filing the suit, They
knew it very well that the defendant was going to hand over the prototype on i.e. 5 th
May 2021. The only logical conclusion to this series of events is that the Plaintiff had
a mala fide intention. Since in the present scenario there was no misrepresentation by
the Defendant as she was extensively working over the project throughout the course
of time and had no intention of breaching the contract & dishonest intention towards
the Plaintiff. In the instant case, there is no question of breach of contract as there was
no contract between the parties. The contract was void ab initio as the Defendant was
a minor at the time of signing the contract. In light of the above arguments, it is
pleaded that the demand for damages and recovery of a lump sum amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- (two lakh fifty thousand rupees) by the Plaintiff is unrighteous and totally
out of the line.
1. Jurisdiction
It is humbly submitted before the mante high court that the suit is maintainable which is
filed by plaintiff in court of law. As high court have jurisdiction over all cases. Section 15
of Cpc only deals with the procedure not with the jurisdiction. moreover section 156 22
says that the institution of a suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, it
does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court of a higher grade; even if the Court of a higher
grade tries and disposes of a suit which could have been instituted in a Court of a lower
grade, the decision rendered is not without jurisdiction and is not a nullity .The same was
held in case of Subhashini Malik23 it was held that Section 15 of the CPC enjoins the
institution of a suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it, it does not oust the
jurisdiction of the Court of a higher grade; even if the Court of a higher grade tries and
disposes of a suit which could have been instituted in a Court of a lower grade, the
22
23
Subhashini Malik vs S.K. Gandhi & Ors on 6 September, 2016
decision rendered is not without jurisdiction and is not a nullity. Section 15 CPC is only
to prevent superior Courts being flooded or overcrowded with suits triable by Courts of
inferior grade and it merely regulates procedure and not jurisdiction. Same was held in
Kesavarapu Venkateswarlu Vs. Sardharala- Satyanarayana24 it was held that Section 15
CPC lays down a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction of the superior Court. In case
Taran Jeet Kaur vs. G.S. Bhatia25 it was held that the pecuniary jurisdiction and that the
minimum pecuniary jurisdiction does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction over
suits, valuation whereof for the purposes of jurisdiction is below its minimum pecuniary
jurisdiction. The rule of institution of suit in Courts of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction
under Section 15 of the CPC, as aforesaid has to be read along with Section 21 of the
CPC.
Jurisdiction :-
It is humbly submitted before the mante high court that the suit is not maintainable as it
will just a overcrowded and increase the number of cases in high court. As cases like this
can be tried in lower court.like in case of Suryanarayana v. Bullad Justice Sundaram
Chetty held that the trial of a suit by a higher Court when it is triable by a Court of lower
Grade by virtue of Section 15, C.P.C. is merely an irregularity. Since section 15 of the
Civil Procedure Code,expressly says that where more than one Court has a jurisdiction
over a matter, the case should be instituted only in the Court of the lower grade competent
to try it.The Sub Court being a Court lower to the District Court in the hierarchy of
Courts, the application for grant of probate or letters of administration will have to be
instituted only in that Court.
The suitor shall be obliged to bring his suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to
try it. The object of the legislature is that the Court of the higher grade shall not be over
crowded with suits. The proviso is for the benefit of the Court of higher grade.The suit
24
AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 49
25
2009 (108) DRJ 89
shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try, the same has to be
adhered it was held in case of Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata26.
26
1987 (3) SCC 705
