NOVICE MOOT COURT PROPOSITION, 2025
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Wood Company ("Wood Co.") owns and operates a timber plantation in Green Valley
since 1995. The plantation shares its eastern boundary with the railway tracks
operated by Rail Company Ltd. ("Rail Co.").
2. Between January 2022 and December 2023, Wood Co. documented five separate
incidents of small fires on their property. These fires allegedly originated from sparks
emitted by Rail Co.'s locomotives. Rail Co. compensated Wood Co. for two of these
incidents without admitting liability.
3. On January 10, 2024, Wood Co. approached Rail Co. with a business proposal to
supply railway sleepers (wooden ties), suggesting that such an arrangement would
benefit both parties.
4. On February 12, 2024, Rail Co., through its procurement officer Ms. Jane Brown, sent
an email to Wood Co.'s sales director Mr. Bob Jones with the following proposal:
o Supply of 5,000 hardwood railway sleepers
o Price: $65 per unit
o Delivery: Monthly installments of 1,000 units, beginning March 15, 2024
o Quality specifications: Grade A hardwood, treated with fire-resistant
chemicals
5. On February 14, 2024, Wood Co. responded to the proposal, accepting the essential
terms but modifying the delivery schedule to:
o 750 units in the first month (March)
o 850 units per month thereafter (April-August)
o Total delivery period: 6 months
6. Rail Co. did not explicitly acknowledge this modification but sent a purchase order on
February 20, 2024, with the reference "As per our agreement" and subsequently made
an advance payment of 20% of the total contract value.
7. Wood Co. delivered the first installment of 750 sleepers on March 15, 2024, which
Rail Co. accepted without objection.
8. On March 14, 2024, a major fire broke out in Wood Co.'s plantation, destroying
approximately 20 acres of timber, including mature trees designated for the Rail Co.
order.
9. Railway safety logs indicated that a Rail Co. locomotive (Engine #RCL-472) had
passed through the area at 13:45 hours on March 14, 2024, approximately 30 minutes
before the fire was first reported.
10. Rail Co. maintained that its locomotives were equipped with the following safety
features:
Spark arrestors on all chimneys
Secure ashpans to prevent hot coal discharge
Regular maintenance schedules for all engines
11. Rail Co.'s operational guidelines mandated a speed reduction to 25 km/h while
passing through wooded areas, but the locomotive's black box data revealed it had
been traveling at 48 km/h when passing Wood Co.'s plantation.
12. On March 30, 2024, Wood Co. formally notified Rail Co. that due to the fire damage,
they could deliver only 60% of the remaining order. They proposed a revised delivery
schedule and offered a 10% discount on the remaining deliveries.
13. On April 10, 2024, Rail Co. rejected this proposal and served Wood Co. with a legal
notice demanding full performance of the contract.
14. Wood Co. responded by asserting that the contract had been frustrated due to the fire,
which they alleged was caused by Rail Co.'s negligence.
15. On May 5, 2024, Rail Co. filed a suit against Wood Co. in the High Court of Green
Valley
ISSUES
1. Whether Rail Co. is liable in negligence for the fire that damaged Wood Co.'s timber
plantation despite the safety measures implemented on its locomotives?
2. Whether a binding contract was formed between Wood Co. and Rail Co.,
incorporating the modified delivery schedule proposed by Wood Co. ?
3. Whether the doctrine of frustration applies to discharge Wood Co. from its contractual
obligations due to the fire incident?
