moot problem and a moot memorial, Lecture notes of Contract Law

Download moot problem and a moot memorial and more Lecture notes Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity!

MOOT PROPOSITION

1. Matty maddy, a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Aaryavartistan was the recipient of the “Astonishing Singing of the Country” award. He was an amazing singer, extremely talented not only in Classical and Folk but in Rap, Rock, Hip-Hop and Jazz also. He wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different genres and by engaging himself on world music tours. So, he wanted a multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural marvel where he could have his recording studio, theatre - for live musical performances and a roof top pool for hosting parties. He misrepresented himself as a major and put the task out to tender.
2. A well-known building builder and provider of infrastructure was M/s. Kunal & Kumar. They proposed to complete the entire project for Rs. 10,000,000. Both parties were aware that the contract's price was unreasonably low and that it would be paid in instalments as the various phases of the assigned task were finished.
3. Matty agreed to their proposal and signed a contract to build the multipurpose structure and supply all of its facilities. The first floor was designated for the music theatre, the second floor was designated for the recording studio, and the top floor was designated for the rooftop pool, according to the contract.

4. M/s. Kunal & Kumar finished building the ground level and first story but were out of resources to continue building. They told Matty that without further funding, they would not be able to finish the project.
5. Top music directors, producers, and other well-known members of the music industry were invited to a poolside party that Matty organized in order to raise money for his ideal music albums and music tours. He therefore fought tooth and nail to see that the roof top pool was built according to plan. He had asked for the building work to continue and for the remaining Rs. 7,00,000 to be paid for out of their own pockets. He had also promised to pay them the money as soon as his record was published.
6. The party was successful, and the rooftop pool was finished. Matty signed a contract with Veenaghaana Producers, who agreed to provide funding for the international tours and the fusion CDs. Ms. Anita, the Manager of M/s. Kunal & Kumar, was informed by Matty. My career has been preserved, Madam. Don't be concerned about Rs. 7,00,000. With this as a guarantee, M/s. Kunal & Kumar launched a brand-new undertaking. But Matty's latest fusion record was a complete failure. His loud and strange fusion music was heavily parodied by social media users and meme pages. He subsequently discovered that he was unable to give M/s. Kunal & Kumar the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-.
7. Matty was forced to perform music at Ms. Anita's daughter's birthday celebration. In addition to inviting family and friends, she had also invited wealthy individuals in order to gain contracts for building, construction, etc. In exchange, she agreed to relieve Matty of his Rs. 7,00,000/- obligations. Matty concurred and prepared himself for the party's musical performance. He also desired to rebuild his reputation and

begin his professional life over. But because of the excessive repetition of rehearsals, he had a terrible sore throat the day before the party. On the advice of his doctor, he later decided not to perform at Ms. Anita's celebration.

8. On the basis of humanism, both sides resolved to change the contract on Matty's eighteenth birthday. Matty acknowledged the debt owed to M/s. Kunal & Kumar for prior services rendered, and both parties agreed to pay the debt in simple monthly instalments (EMIs) of Rs. 20,000 until the whole amount of Rs. 7,00,000 was repaid.
9. Later, Matty believed that M/s. Kunal & Kumar had not completed the task in the manner he had requested. He also emphasized how poor quality and unsatisfactory the building materials were. He calculated that it would have only cost them Rs. 3,000,000. He asserted that he had already made the payment.
10. Then Matty made the decision to sell his property without making any restitution to M/s. Kunal & Kumar. When they became aware of all the wrongdoing, they attempted to control him by applying intense pressure in an effort to recoup the $700,000 they had spent on the building' construction and amenities. Even after such a long time and a different form of payment, M/s. Kunal & Kumar were unable to get Matty to pay back the amount. In desperation, they handed him a court summons demanding that the money be returned within 15 days. Matty, however, didn't respond to the aforementioned notice or send any contact.

11. M/s. Kunal & Kumar ultimately chose to seek redress from the Court of Law in this situation. M/s. Kunal & Kumar filed the lawsuit before the Civil Court of Patliputra in the State of Aaryavartistan on the grounds that although they had built the building in accordance with the contract, Matty Maddy has since refused to pay the loan sum of Rs. 7,00,000 and accused them of fraud. Additionally, they asked for an injunction preventing Matty from selling the house until the lawsuit was resolved.
12. By maintaining the decision made in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the Civil Court of Patliputra heard the case and ruled that a minor's contract is void ab initio, freeing Matty from all of his obligations to M/s. Kunal & Kumar. The Plaintiff's claim of restitution was denied, and an injunction was not granted.

13. M/s. Kunal & Kumar preferred an appeal before the High Court of Patliputra. The High Court granted injunction and decided to hear the case on merits. The following are the issues framed for consideration: i. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Kunal & Kumar and Mr. Matty Maddy? ii. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs reconsideration? iii. Whether the Civil Court of Aaryavartistian was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?