Roll Number:13

Presidency University School of Law

Moot Court Competition

Before

The District Court Of Senior Civil Judge , Mumbai

Alpha Gallery
(Plaintiff )
V.
Beta Security Company
( Defendant)

Case Concerning with breach of contract and related issues

Submitted in the Registry of the District court.

Memorial for the plaintiff.

Memorial on Behalf of the Plaintiff

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………

ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………

Memorial on Behalf of the Plainti

2
ff
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Hon’ble — honorable

2. i.e.— that is

3. SC — Supreme Court

4.ICA — Indian contract Act 1872

5.u/s — Under section

6. S/d — signed

Memorial on behalf of the plainti

3
ff
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Precedents:-

1.Haatmal Bhutoria v.Dominion of India, MANU/WB/0009/1961 : AIR 1961

Cal 54.

2.Kavita Trehan And Ors. vs Balsara Hygiene Products Limited on 28 May,

1991:AIR1992DELHI92.

3.Bank Of India vs Vijay Transport & Ors on 12 October, 2000

4. South Eastern Railway Co. v. Railway Executive (1949)

5.The State Of Rajasthan vs Mst. Vidhyawati And Another on 2 February,

1962 AIR 933, 1962 SCR SUPL. (2) 989, AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 933.

6. Coggs v Bernard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909

Websites:-

1.Legal crystal.com
2.Indiankanoon.org.
3.Scconline.com
4. Lawctopus.com
5. manupatra.com

STATUTES:-

The Indian Special Contract Act 1872.

Memorial on behalf of plaintiff

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the suit filed before this
Honourable Court. The suit concerning “breach of contract and related issues”
is filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge in accordance with the Section 6,
Section 9 and Section 20 of the Civil Procedural Code , the Court has the
jurisdiction to decide all the matters referred to it for decision. Both the parties
shall accept the Court‟s decision as final and binding and execute in good
faith.

Memorial on behalf of plaintiff

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Alpha Gallery, a prestigious contemporary art gallery, contracted Beta

Security, a reputable security company, to safeguard valuable artwork during an
exhibition.

2. The contract specified that Beta Security would provide 24/7 security
surveillance and take necessary precautions to prevent theft or damage to the
artwork.

3. Despite the security measures in place, a rare painting by a renowned artist

was stolen from Alpha Gallery's premises during the exhibition.

4. The theft has raised concerns about Beta Security's liability and the extent of
their obligation to protect the artwork.

Memorial on behalf of the plaintiff

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether Beta Security breached the terms of the contract by failing to

prevent the theft of the valuable artwork despite providing security surveillance

2.whether Beta Security acted negligently in safeguarding the artwork, leading

to the theft, and if their actions or inactions contributed to the loss.

3. whether they can be held responsible for the loss under the terms of the
contract.

4. whether they fulfilled their obligation to take all necessary precautions to

prevent theft or damage

Memorial on behalf of the plaintiff

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1).Whether Beta Security breached the terms of the contract by failing to

prevent the theft of the valuable artwork despite providing security
surveillance?

It would be necessary to review the specific language of the contract between Alpha Gallery
and Beta Security. The contract likely outlined the security measures to be taken, the
responsibilities of Beta Security, and the standard of care expected in safeguarding the
artwork.The contract clearly specified that Beta Security was required to provide round-the-
clock security surveillance and take all necessary precautions to prevent theft or damage to
the artwork, then their failure to prevent the theft could be considered a breach of contract.
Given that the theft occurred despite the security measures implemented by Beta Security, it
can be inferred that they did not fulfil their obligation to safeguard the artwork as required
by the contract. This failure to prevent the theft could be considered a breach of contract on
the part of Beta Security, as they did not meet the standard of care expected in safeguarding
the valuable artwork.
Therefore, in this scenario, it is reasonable to argue that Beta Security breached the terms of
the contract by failing to prevent the theft of the valuable artwork, and Alpha Gallery may
have grounds to seek legal recourse for the loss suffered as a result of this breach.

2)Whether Beta Security acted negligently in safeguarding the artwork,

leading to the theft, and if their actions or inactions contributed to the loss?

Beta Security acted negligently in safeguarding the artwork, leading to the theft, and
that their actions or inactions contributed to the loss. Beta Security had a duty of care
to protect the artwork and ensure its security. However, they failed to take adequate
measures to prevent the theft, such as installing proper security systems, conducting
regular patrols, or implementing other security protocols.
Furthermore, it can be argued that Beta Security's negligence directly contributed to
the loss of the artwork. Had they fulfilled their duty of care and taken appropriate
security measures, the theft may have been prevented or at least mitigated. Therefore,
it can be concluded that Beta Security's negligence played a significant role in the
theft of the artwork, and they should be held liable for their actions or inactions that
led to the loss.

Memorial on behalf of the plaintiff

8
3) Whether they can be held responsible for the loss under the terms of the
contract ?

Beta Security can be held responsible for the loss of the artwork under the terms of
the contract. Beta Security had a specific duty to prevent theft or damage to the
artwork, and the fact that the theft still occurred suggests that they may have failed to
fulfil this duty adequately.

Moreover, if it can be shown that Beta Security did not exercise the level of care and
precaution expected of them under the contract, they could be held liable for the loss
of the artwork. This would likely involve proving that Beta Security's actions or
inactions directly contributed to the theft of the artwork.

4. Whether they fulfilled their obligation to take all necessary precautions

to prevent theft or damage?

Beta Security did not fulfil their obligation to take all necessary precautions to
prevent theft or damage to the artwork. Despite the security measures implemented
by Beta Security, the prized artwork was stolen from Alpha Gallery's premises during
the exhibition.

The fact that the theft occurred despite the presence of round-the-clock security
surveillance raises questions about the effectiveness of the precautions taken by Beta
Security. It suggests that there may have been lapses in the security measures or that
the security protocols in place were not sufficient to prevent the theft of the artwork.

Given that the primary responsibility of Beta Security under the contract was to
safeguard the valuable artwork and prevent theft or damage, the occurrence of the
theft raises doubts about whether they fulfilled their obligation to take all necessary
precautions. If it can be shown that Beta Security's actions or omissions contributed
to the theft of the artwork, they may be held liable for failing to fulfil their duty of
care under the contract.

there is a strong argument to suggest that Beta Security did not fulfil their obligation
to take all necessary precautions to prevent theft or damage to the artwork, as
evidenced by the theft that occurred during the exhibition.

Memorial on behalf of the plaintiff

9
 PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts stated , issues raised , arguments advanced

and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the
Hon‟ble District Court of Senior Civil Judge , Mumbai, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare

THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED Rs.65 lakh AS DAMAGES FOR

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

The court may be pleased to pass any other decree , which the court may
deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

COUNSELS FOR PLAINTIFF

Memorial on behalf of the plaintiff

10