TEAM CODE: 053
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025-2026.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT.
UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
………….
IN THE MATTER OF
HARISH ………..………………………………………………………..........PLAINTIFF.
VS.
ISHA ….………………………………….………..…………………………DEFENDANT.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE CIVIL COURT.
NAME – NIBEDITA SAHU .
ROLL NO.- 053/2021 .
SEMESTER – 9TH SEMESTER,5TH YEAR, ([Link].B)Hons.
COLLEGE – MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 1
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025 – 2026.
[ TABLE OF CONTENTS]
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
ABBREVIATIONS 3.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5.
BOOKS 4.
STATUES 4.
LEGAL DATABASE 4.
CASE LAWS 5.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-16.
1. Whether there was a contract between Isha and Harsh as per
the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 10-13.
2. Whether there was a breach of Contract by Isha? 14-16.
PRAYER 17.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 2
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025 – 2026.
[ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ]
[Link] ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS
01. Ors Others.
02. Sec Sections.
03. CPC Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
04. Ref. Reference.
05. v. Versus.
06. AIR All India Reporter.
07. ICA Indian Contract Act,1872.
08. & And.
09. UOI Union Of India.
10. SCC Supreme Court Cases.
11. Hon’ble Honorable.
12. Vol. Volume.
13. Anr. Another.
14. IT, ACT Information Technology Act, 2000.
15. Ad. Advertisement.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 3
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025 – 2026.
[ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ]
STATUTES :
1. The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. The Information Technology Act,2000.
LIST OF BOOKS :
SL NO. LIST OF BOOKS
01. Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief, Allahabad Law Agency.
02. C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure Limitation And Commercial Courts, EBC.
03. Dr. S.R. Myneni, Information Technology Law, Asia Law House.
LEGAL DATABASE USED:-
[Link]
[Link] [Link]
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 4
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
[ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ]
CASE CITED :
SL NAME OF THE CASE. CITATION.
NO :
01. P.R. Transport Agency vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 ALL 23.
(1893)1QB 256 (UK).
02. Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co,
03. Bhagwan das Govardhan das Kedia vs. M/S. Girdharilal Parshottam AIR 1966 SC 543.
das,
04. Henthorn vs. Fraser, [1892] 2 Ch 27.
05. Kami Setti Subbiah vs. Katha Venkataswamy, (1903) 27 ILR Mad
355.
06. Hadley vs. Baxendale, (1854) 9 Exch 341.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 5
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025 – 2026.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the present matter under the following section
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:-
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .-
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature,
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation [I ] A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature,
notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or
ceremonies.
[ Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the
office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.] [Inserted by
the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 5 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977). ]
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 6
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA–CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT, 2025 – 2026.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Isha got some new groceries & chocolates from a store, and then she published an ad in the local
newspaper saying that she is willing to sell boxes of luxury Belgian chocolate, GODIVA, at a discount
to make the residents happy.
II. The price she fixed was Rs. 2,500/- instead of the suggested retail price of Rs. 5,000/-. She also says that
there are just 50 boxes left. The advertisement gave information that anyone who wants to buy the
chocolate should go to the store and talk to Isha or email her at ishag@[Link].
III. The advertisement was published in the local newspaper at 4:30 [Link] Saturday. Harsh noticed the
advertisement and immediately sent Isha an email asking for six boxes of Godiva chocolate. Isha
received the mail on her laptop at 5:09 PM on Saturday.
IV. On Saturday night, Isha realised that the discount was too good because she wasn't making any money
on the chocolate. She called the local newspaper and asked them to publish an advertisement in the next
day's paper, letting the people know that the reduced price is no longer available.
V. The paper on Sunday comes out at 9:00 AM and is delivered to Harsh around 10:30 AM. Isha opens the
store on Sunday at 10 a.m. At 10:45 am, she reads Harsh's email but refuses to sell him the chocolate.
She says in her reply that the discount is no longer valid. Harsh went to the Civil Court to bring a breach
of contract complaint when they refused.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 7
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
ISSUE I.
WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN ISHA AND HARSH AS PER THE
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
ISSUE II.
WHETHER THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ISHA?
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 8
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT,2025 – 2026.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN ISHA & HARSH AS PER THE INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
No contract was formed between the Respondent and the Petitioner as the advertisement
constituted an invitation to offer and not a binding offer. Acceptance was not communicated to
the Respondent before revocation as per Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act.
2. WHETHER THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ISHA?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Civil Court that the Contract between Isha & Harsh was a valid
contract as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The revocation by the defendant after receiving the mail from the
plaintiff did not lead to the breach of contract by Isha. Since no valid contract was formed, there is no question
of breach by the Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 9
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN ISHA & HARSH AS PER THE INDIAN
CONTRACT ACT, 1872?
It is very humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that there was no contract between Isha & Harsh as
per the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For establishing a valid contract, an offer should be made. The advertisement
given by Isha in the local paper was an invitation to offer.
Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Interpretation clause.—
In this Act, the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention
appears from the context:—
(a)When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to
obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a "proposal";
(b)When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be
accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a "promise";
Offer is also divided into five major types:-
General Offer – Offer made to the public at large and anyone can accept by performing the desired act.
Specific / Special Offer – Offer made to a specific/ ascertained person & can be accepted only by that specified
person.
Cross Offer – Two parties exchange identical offers in ignorance of each other’s offer at the same time. It is not
binding.
Counter Offer – Offeree offers qualified acceptance of the offer, subject to modifications and variations in the
terms of the original offer. A counteroffer amounts to a rejection of the original offer.
Standing/Open Offer – An offer of a continuous nature which remains open for acceptance over a period of
time.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
Page | 10
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
The advertisement was merely an invitation to offer and not a proposal under Section 2(a) of the Act.
Under Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a proposal is made when a person signifies willingness to
do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of the other party.
Advertisements are generally treated as invitations to offer, not binding offers.
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (AIR 1913 All 489) 1– The Allahabad High Court held that an advertisement
calling for action (like finding a missing boy) is not a contractually enforceable offer, but an invitation to
negotiate.
Pharmaceutical Society v. Boots Cash Chemists ([1953] EWCA Civ 6) 2– Display of goods in a shop was
held to be an invitation to offer; the actual offer is made by the customer at the cash counter.
Similarly, in the present case, Isha’s advertisement was an invitation to offer to the general public, not a binding
promise to sell to everyone who responds. Harsh’s email constituted an offer, which Isha was free to accept or
reject.
No acceptance or proposal was communicated to Isha before revocation as per Section 4 of the Act.
Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act states that communication of acceptance is complete against the proposer
when it comes to his knowledge.
Mere sending of an email does not complete communication unless the proposer becomes aware of it.
And in this case, the communication is not completed as per section 4 of the Contract Act 1872, where it also
states that a proposal is communicated when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made
In the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas, 3the Supreme Court held
that an offeror becomes bound only when acceptance comes to his knowledge, not when it is dispatched.
In this case, Harsh’s email was sent at 4:30 PM Saturday and received at 5:09 PM, but Isha read it only at 10:45
AM on Sunday, after the revocation was published. Therefore, acceptance was not complete before revocation.
Revocation of the offer before acceptance was valid under Section 5 of the Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act allows a proposer to revoke an offer at any time before communication of
acceptance is complete as against the proposer.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
1
(AIR 1913 All 489)
2
([1953] EWCA Civ 6)
3
1966 AIR 543
Page | 11
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 - 2026.
Revocation can be through a reasonable means of communication, including public notice.
Har Bhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal4. The Court held that an offer can be revoked at any time before
acceptance is communicated to the proposer.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 5This case is often cited for exceptions where an advertisement can
amount to an offer if there is a clear intention to create legal relations. However, in the present case, there was
no such intention.
Here, Isha published a revocation notice in the newspaper on Sunday morning before reading Harsh’s email.
Therefore, the revocation was valid and binding.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
4
AIR 1925 ALL 539
5
[1893] 1 QB 256
Page | 12
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
2. WHETHER THERE WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ISHA?
It is respectfully submitted by the counsel to this honourable court that the contract by Isha was valid. As it
is stated above, there was a valid contract between them, so the revocation of the contract by the defendant led
to the breach of contract. As there was proper communication was made, it led to a valid contract between
them.
Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Revocation of Proposals and Acceptance.—
A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the
proposer, but not afterwards.
An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against
the acceptor, but not afterwards.
A breach of contract presupposes the existence of a valid and enforceable contract under Section 10 of the Act.
Since there was no valid contract (due to the absence of acceptance before revocation), there can be no breach.
In the case of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt 6court held that no contract exists where acceptance was not
communicated properly.
Also, in the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia, 7case court declared that Acceptance must come to
the knowledge of the proposer for a binding contract to exist.
So in this case, since the essential element of communication of acceptance before revocation was missing,
there is no contractual liability on the Respondent.
In the conclusion, the advertisement was an invitation to offer, and acceptance was not communicated before
revocation, and thus no enforceable contract was formed. Therefore, there is no question of breach of contract
by the Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
6
[1919] 40 ALJ 489.
7
1996 AIR 543
Page | 13
MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK, INTRA-CLASS MOOT COURT
ASSIGNMENT. 2025 – 2026.
PRAYER
Therefore, in light of the facts stated, the issue raised, the argument advanced, and the authorities cited, the
counsel on behalf of the defendant humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare to :
That no valid contract existed between the parties.
Recognise that the Plaintiff committed a breach of contract.
Award damages equivalent to the loss suffered, along with costs of the suit.
AND /OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
DATE:- 04/09/2025.
PLACE:- .
COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Page | 14
Page | 15
