Scribd
Upload
95 views3 pages

Moot Speech

First, force majeure is a valid defense for Bell Electronics' breach of contract due to the natural calamity that occurred. The calamity was unpredictable, irresistible as the company could not control nature, and external. Second, the exceptions of negligence and malice do not apply as Bell Electronics did not contribute to the calamity and did not have ill intent. Second, Infopro was negligent but not contributorily negligent. Negligence does not require intent, and Mr. Kumar adding the wrong address made Infopro liable for delay. Infopro also failed in its duty to mitigate losses by not communicating the urgency of the laptop order. Third, Bell Electronics is not liable for financial losses as the urgency

Uploaded by

Gouri Sinha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
95 views3 pages

Moot Speech

First, force majeure is a valid defense for Bell Electronics' breach of contract due to the natural calamity that occurred. The calamity was unpredictable, irresistible as the company could not control nature, and external. Second, the exceptions of negligence and malice do not apply as Bell Electronics did not contribute to the calamity and did not have ill intent. Second, Infopro was negligent but not contributorily negligent. Negligence does not require intent, and Mr. Kumar adding the wrong address made Infopro liable for delay. Infopro also failed in its duty to mitigate losses by not communicating the urgency of the laptop order. Third, Bell Electronics is not liable for financial losses as the urgency

Uploaded by

Gouri Sinha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Greetings to the bench

The counsel would like to proceed with the next set of issues.

With regard to the second issue, there are two reasons for force majeure to be a
valid defence to infopro’s breach of contract.
First being the three tests of force majeure, namely unpredictability, irrestibility
and externality.
• Applying the test of unpredictability, the Bell Electronics Lt. is not liable
for the delay in delivery because of the unpredictable natural calamity
that had struck the region of their manufacturing unit during the period
the laptops were scheduled to be produced and dispatched. Evidence for
the same was provided by the counsel, which even after being clearly
stated in the facts, the learned opposing counsel denied in their argument
presented.
• Applying the next test of irresistibility, the company was powerless to
stop the occurrence of the natural calamity, making the execution of the
contractual obligations on time difficult. It is argued by the learned
opposing counsel that reasonable steps to mitigate the impact was not
taken by the bell electronics. It can be noted that it is not with in the
human power to control a natural event and it has been assumed by the
opposing counsel that no reasonable steps were taken by the company.
• Applying the third test of externality, the natural calamity under force
majeure is often labelled as ‘act of god’. It should be an external event
and not because of the negligence of the party. In this case the natural
calamity was an external event, hence, making force majeure a valid
defence.
• Second being the exceptions to use force majeure as a defence which
does not apply to bel electronics in this case.
• Negligence, as one, bel electronics was not negligent in the case and there
was no contribution to the occurrence of natural calamity by the
company.
• Other exception is mal intention, which refers to the deliberate actions
taken by one party to harm the other intentionally. In this case, contrary to
what was argued by the learned opposing counsel , according to Mr.
Kumar’s research, bel was a reputed company which according to the
facts was not shown to have a personal vendetta against infopro, and
hence, cannot be claimed to have deliberately and intentionally
mishandled the order as claimed by the opposing counsel.

If the bench is satisfied, the counsel may proceed to the third issue.

Much obliged, Your Lordship.

With regard to this issue, the reason for infopro for not being contributory
negligent but only negligent is that the bell electronics ltd was not liable
for any negligence and hence, infopro could not have contributed to it.
Negligence is the omission or committing of an act violating the legal
duty of care.
Contrary to what the learned opposing counsel has claimed, intention is
not an essential element under negligence and hence, the fact that Mr.
Kumar added the wrong address unintentionally is of no value and makes
him liable for negligence causing the delay in delivery of goods which
were dispatched to the wrong address initially.
According to the principle of duty to mitigate, the injured party has a duty
to take reasonable steps to minimize or mitigate its losses. This was not
followed by Mr. Kumar as he failed to mention his urgent requirement
even after contacting and connecting with the customer support, which
otherwise would have mitigated his damages, by getting a faster delivery
by the company.
According to section 73 if the ICA, a party who suffers a loss due to the
breach of contract, is entitled to receive any loss or damage that was
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the making of the contract.
Although claimed by the opposite counsel time and again, the urgency of
the laptop requirement was not communicated by Infopro at the time of
formation of the contract.
Hence, Bell electronics ltd is not liable for any financial losses occurred
during that time but is only entitled to deliver the 50 laptops ordered
initially.

You might also like