MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

BIKASH BHARATI LAW COLLEGE

1. Roll Number – L06/LLB/191540

Registration Number – L06-1111-0055-19

2. Roll Number – L06/LLB/191582

Registration Number – L06-1211-0023-19

3. Roll Number – L06/LLB/191625

Registration Number – L06-1211-0065-19

4. Roll Number – L06/LLB/191528

Registration Number – L06-1211-0057-19
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: 027

PRACTICAL TRAINING PAPER –IV

NOTEBOOK NO – IV

PART – A

CIVIL MOOT PROPOSITION

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF MATE OF EVERGREENPETITION

UNDER SECTION 18, 37, 39, 73 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

REF. CASE NO. ________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

PETERSON

…...………….PETITIONER

V.

GREEN MEADOWS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY

………………..RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJPUR

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF RAJPUR

 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………… 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………. 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………... 6

ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………………… 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………… 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………….................................. 9 - 11

PRAYER …………………………………………………………….…............. 12

[2]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL.NO. ABBREVIATION EXPANSIONS

1. & AND

2. CO. COMPANY

3. § SECTION
4.. ¶ PARAGRAPH

5. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

6. HON’BLE HONOURABLE
7. LTD. LIMITED

8. LRS. LIBERALISED REMITTANCE SCHEME

9. NO. NUMBER
10. PVT. PRIVATE

11. ORS. OTHERS

12. PG. PAGE

13. SC SUPREME COURT

14. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

15. V. VERSUS

[3]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. COURT CASES

SL. CITATION PG.

NO NO.
1. Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. 281 Pa. 320 (1924). 9

2. Redgrave v Hurd. (1881) 20 Ch D 1. 10

3. Hadley v. Baxendale. 9 Exch 341 (1854). 11

II . INDIAN STATUTES

1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

2. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

III. BOOKS

1. N.D. KAPOOR, MERCANTILE LAW (SULTAN CHAND & SONS, 37TH Revised edition,
2018).

IV. WEB RESOURCES

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in.

2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38912453/.

[4]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Civil Court, Mate of Evergreen jurisdiction to try, entertain dispose of present
case by virtue Section 15 ,16 and 17 Civil Procedure Code ,1908.

Section 15 ,16 and 17 Civil Procedure Code have the power to proceed any new filing civil
case. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that every suit must be instituted in the
Court of the lowest grade having jurisdiction to hear it. Sections 16and 17 lay down certain
restrictions as to the locality where certain suits affecting immoveable property
can be instituted.

[5]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 1. Green Meadows Retirement Community (Green Meadows) is a prestigious senior living

facility known for Its luxurious amenities and exceptional care where John Peterson, an 82-
year-old widower, toured Green Meadows and was impressed by their sales representative's
claims.

¶ 2. These included;

• Guaranteed on site medical care staffed by a geriatric physician 24/7.

• 2. Independent living cottages equipped with emergency call buttons in every room.
Daily chef prepared meals with a variety of dietary options.
• 3. Relying on these assurances, Mr. Peterson signed a lifetime residency agreement
with Green Meadows.

¶ 3. However, upon moving in, Mr. Peterson discovered -

• The on-site medical care consisted of a nurse practitioner available during limited
hours. No geriatric physician was present.
• The emergency call buttons in his cottage malfunctioned repeatedly
• The dally meals were often bland and lacked variety, making it difficult for Mr. Peterson
to manage his dietary restrictions.

¶ 4. Feeling deceived, Mr. Peterson wishes to terminate his residency agreement and seek a full
refund of his entrance fee.

¶ 5. Green Meadows refuses, arguing the contract is binding and the amenities were accurately
described in the marketing materials.

[6]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

1. Did Green Meadows breach the residency agreement by failing to provide the promised
amenities?

2. Did the sales representative's statements about the amenities constitute negligent
misrepresentation?

3. Is Mr. Peterson entitled to terminate the agreement and recover his entrance fee?

[7]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE- 1

Did Green Meadows breach the residency agreement by failing to provide the promised
amenities?

Green Meadows don't breach the residential agreement. They provide all those amenities which
they promised at the time of making the agreement. Their representatives always tried to give
the best services which they promised. After hearing all those amenities, Mr. Peterson signed
the agreement for a lifetime with his free consent. So, Green Meadows contends that the
amenities provided were in line with what was described in their marketing materials. The
contract entered into by Mr. Peterson is binding, and any alleged discrepancies do not amount
to a material breach of contract.

ISSUE- 2

Did the sales representative's statements about the amenities constitute negligent
misrepresentation?

In this case, the representatives of Green Meadows Community didn't misrepresent the
amenities which they promised at the time of making the agreement. Here, The Green Meadows
contends that the amenities provided were in line with what was described in their marketing
materials. The statements made by the sales representative were based on the information
available to them at the time and were not made with the intent to deceive Mr. Peterson.

ISSUE- 3

Is Mr. Peterson entitled to terminate the agreement and recover his entrance fee?

When any person with his sound mind and his free consent makes any agreement and after that
without any valid reason if he breaks the agreement, he can't claim competition from other
parties. Here, Mr. Peterson breaks the agreement with his own consent. So, he has no right to
claim entrance fee from Greene Meadows Community.

[8]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE- 1

Did Green Meadows breach the residency agreement by failing to provide the promised
amenities?

• Section 37 of The Indian Contract Act, 18721 stated that 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. Promises
bind the representatives of the promisors in case of the death of such promisors before
performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.
• Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 18722 all agreements are contracts 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.
• Here, The Green Meadows contends that the residency agreement signed by Mr. Peterson
is the governing document, and any representations made by the sales representative must
be consistent with the written terms of this agreement. There was a free consent of Mr.
Peterson while making agreement with The Green Meadows. It is a fundamental principle
of contract law that written agreements supersede oral statements unless the contract
explicitly incorporates these statements. So, Green Meadows contends that the amenities
provided were in line with what was described in their marketing materials. The contract
entered into by Mr. Peterson is binding, and any alleged discrepancies do not amount to a
material breach of contract.
• In Gianni v. R. Russell & Co.3 the court held that a written contract is presumed to embody
all prior negotiations and agreements.

1
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
2
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
3
281 Pa. 320 (1924).

[9]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE- 2

Did the sales representative's statements about the amenities constitute negligent
misrepresentation?

• Section 18 of The Indian Contract Act, 18724 stated that “Misrepresentation” means and
includes—
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person
making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to 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;
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the
substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
• Here, The Green Meadows contends that the amenities provided were in line with what was
described in their marketing materials. The statements made by the sales representative
were based on the information available to them at the time and were not made with the
intent to deceive Mr. Peterson. Therefore, they do not constitute negligent
misrepresentation under Section 18 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• Redgrave v Hurd5 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds
that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee
also had the chance to verify the false statement.

ISSUE- 3

Is Mr. Peterson entitled to terminate the agreement and recover his entrance fee?

• Section 39 of The Indian Contract Act, 18726 stated that when a party to a contract has
refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the
promisee may put an end to the contract, unless he has signified, by words or conduct, his
acquiescence in its continuance.

4
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
5
(1881) 20 Ch D 1.
6
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).

[10]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

• Section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 18727 stated that 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.
• So ,at the end of this case, we can find that the Green Meadows Community can't breach
any residency agreement which they have promised. And their sale representatives give the
proper information about the amenities of the Green Meadows and they can't perform any
misrepresentation. So Mr. Peterson can't claim any compensation from Green Meadows
Community, because he breach the contract in his own consent.
• Hadley v. Baxendale8, in this case establishes that damages must be foreseeable and
directly related to the breach.

7
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
8
9 Exch 341 (1854).

[11]
 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

PRAYER

In the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent most humbly and respectfully prays and requests to the Hon’ble Court to hold that:

1) Declare that Mr. Peterson breach the contract in his own consent.

2) Punished Mr. Peterson for breach the contract with Green Meadows.

3) Declare that Green Meadows 's representative try their best to provide the amenities so they
don't negligent and misrepresentation.

4) Order Mr. Peterson don't refund the entrance fee which he pay Green Meadows.

5) Give the order, for harming the reputation of Green Meadows by Mr. Peterson, pay some
compensation for it.

6) Grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the circumstances.

All of which is most respectfully and humbly submitted.

S/d-

-----------------------------

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

[12]