BEFORE

THE CIVIL COURT

Suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure

In the matter of:

Harsh………...…………………………………………………………....Plaintiff

v/s

Isha…………………………………………………………………….Respondent.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

1
 INDEX

1. Table of Authorities……………………………………………….3.

2. List of Abbreviations……………………………………………...4.

3. Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………5.

4. Statement of Facts…………………………………………………6.

5. Issues Raised……………………………………………………….7.

6. Summary of Arguments…………………………………………...8.

7. Arguments Advanced…………………………………………….9-10.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

2
8. Prayer……………………………………………………………….11.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1. Case Laws:
 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Company Ltd (1893) 1. Q.B 295.
 Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal 1925 SCC OnLine All 79: AIR 1925 All 539.
2. Statues, Books, Commentaries etc:
 Indian Contract Act of 1872.
 Code of Civil Procedure of 1908.
 Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts: Bombay: N.M.
Tripathi, 1972.
3. Websites:
 https://www.scconline.com/
 https://www.manupatrafast.in/

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Meaning

QB Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division.

ICA Indian Contract Act

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit under Section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Isha purchased a new grocery from a retail shop to please the locals.
2. Consequently, Esha decided to put an advertisement in the local newspaper which stated
she stated that she would be selling boxes of luxury Belgrain Chocolate ‘GODIVA’
which are retailed at an MRP of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand Rupees Only) at a discounted
price.
3. Isha priced these chocolates at Rs. 2,500/- (Twenty-five Hundred Rupees Only).
4. In the said advertisement, Esha also stated that only 50 boxes are available and anyone
willing to purchase them should contact Esha in person at a shop or email her at
isha@newshop.in.
5. The said advertisement appeared in the local newspaper on Saturday.
6. Consequently, Harsh saw this advertisement at 4:30 P.M. on Saturday and immediately
sent an email to Esha ordering six of the advertised chocolate boxes
7. The mail was received by Esha at 5:00 P.M. on the same Saturday.
8. On Monday, Isha realised that the discount was too generous and she was not making a
profit.
9. In lieu of this, Isha contacted the local newspaper and asked them to put a notice
informing them that the discount was unavailable the next day.
10. The Sunday paper was published by the local newspaper at 9:00 A.M. and delivered to
Harsh at 10:50 A.M.
11. Isha opened her shop for business at 10:00 A.M. Isha read Harsh’s email at 10:45 A.M.
and refused to sell him the advertised chocolates.
12. Consequently, Harsh filed the present suit for breach of contract.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

6
 Statement of Issues

1. Whether there was a contract between Isha & Harsh in accordance with
the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. Whether there was a breach of contract or not?

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether there was a contract between Isha & Harsh in accordance with the Indian
Contract Act, of 1872?
The Petitioner argues that to establish the validity of a contract, it must meet the essential
requirements of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. Advertisements are generally
treated as invitations to treat, not offers. Referring to Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1
The Petitioner states that an offer becomes binding when the conditions are met. In this case,
Defendant’s advertisement to sell GODIVA chocolates at a discounted price invited offers, and
the Petitioner’s email constitutes an offer, which was accepted when the shop was opened. Given
that the email was received, a valid contract was formed between the parties. The principles in
*Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal* and *Carlill* support this conclusion, asserting that
Defendant's failure to follow through constitutes a breach.
2. Whether there was a breach of contract or not?

In Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal2, the Court ruled that when an offer is made to the public,
a contract is formed upon acceptance through the performance of the required conditions.
Applying this reasoning, the plaintiff in the present case fulfilled the conditions by sending an
email, thereby establishing a valid contract to purchase GODIVA chocolates at the discounted
price of Rs. 2,500/-. The defendant’s failure to honour this agreement constitutes a breach of
contract. The plaintiff, having complied with the terms of the offer, is entitled to the advertised
benefit, and the defendant’s refusal to provide the goods at the agreed price amounts to a failure
to meet her contractual obligations.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether there was a contract between Isha & Harsh in accordance with
the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
1
(1893) 1. Q.B 295.
2
1925 SCC OnLine All 79: AIR 1925 All 539.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

8
It is asserted by the Petitioner that to determine the validity of a contract, it becomes imperative
to examine whether it adheres to the ‘essential requirements’ provided under Section 10 of the
Indian Contract Act, of 1872. Generally, advertisements to the public concerning the sale of
goods at a specified price are not considered offers capable of creating a contractual obligation as
they are treated as invitations to negotiate or to submit offers.
The advertisement constitutes an invitation to treat, not an offer. This has been upheld in a
prominent UK landmark judgment of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd.3The display
of goods at a specific price invites customers to make an offer to buy. Herein, the Petitioner’s
email constitutes an offer, and the Defendant opening the shop is an acceptance. Therefore, a
contract was concluded between parties under the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. In an evident
implied sense, it is asserted by the Petitioner that there is a valid contract between the parties in
dispute. In para 7 of the statement of facts, it is undisputed that the email of the Petitioner was
received by the Defendant. It is also imperative to state that there was a clear intention of
creating a contract since the Petitioner advertised the sale of a luxury commodity at a stupendous
discount.
In the present case, as per the advertisement displayed by the Defendant, she had promised to sell
boxes of luxury Belgian GODIVA chocolates at a discounted price of Rs. 2,500, in contrast to
the recommended retail price of Rs. 5,000. Furthermore, Defendant had also indicated that
anyone wishing to purchase the chocolates should either visit her shop in person or contact her
via email at isha@newshop.in. The principles articulated by Bowen LJ in Carlill v. Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company4 are imminently applicable in the present case. Bowen LJ had observed
that “an offer made to the world at large becomes enforceable by any person who, before the
offer is revoked, performs the conditions specified. While the offer may be made to a broad
audience, the contract arises only with those who act in the faith of the offer and fulfil the
required conditions”. The present case is identical to the aforementioned precedent. In both
instances, the respective advertisements invited members of the public to engage with the offer.
The doctrine of acceptance through the performance of conditions, which was established by the
Allahabad High Court in Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal is directly applicable here. The
principle upheld in that case is that where the terms of a general offer are substantially, though
not necessarily literally, complied with, a valid contract is formed.

2. Whether there was a breach of contract or not?

In Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan Lal,5 The offer was extended to the public, and the plaintiff
accepted the offer by performing the required act. The court held that the Plaintiff was thereby
entitled to the reward. This reasoning directly supports the Plaintiff’s claim in the present suit. It
follows that once a valid contract has been established, the performance of conditions envisaging
the act of sending an email is sufficient to create a binding obligation. Hence, the Plaintiff was
entitled to purchase the boxes of GODIVA chocolates at the discounted price of Rs. 2,500, rather
than the standard retail price of Rs. 5,000/-. This Petitioner unequivocally asserts that this
reasoning affirms that the contract in question was validly formed, and as such, the Plaintiff is
entitled to the benefits promised under the terms of the advertisement. The failure of the
defendant to follow through on the agreed terms has amounted to a breach of contract.

3
(1893) 1. Q.B 295.
4
(1893) 1. Q.B 295.
5
1925 SCC OnLine All 79: AIR 1925 All 539.

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

9
 Prayer
In the light of the facts, stated, issues raised and arguments advanced, it is therefore humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pass an Order:

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

10
1. To direct Defendant to sell boxes of luxury Belgian chocolate GODIVA at a discount
price of Rs. 2500/- instead of the recommended retail price of Rs.5000/- to Plaintiff.
2. To direct Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the troubles of Plaintiff.
3. To pass any Order as this court may deem fit and proper in the light of justice, equity and
good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

11