UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

TC14

UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF NARNIA

IN THE MATTER OF BREACH OF CONTRACT

Sangwan SportsTM Appellant

V.
Cricklord Academy Defendant
CLUBBED WITH

THE MATTER OF DEFAMATION

Cricklord Academy Appellant
V.
Sangwan SportsTM Defendant

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT

OF NARNIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 1

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-........................................................................................................2
-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-.................................................................................................3
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-...................................................................................................5
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-.......................................................................................9
-STATEMENTS OF FACTS-..................................................................................................10
-BACKGROUND OF SANGWAN SPORTSTM-................................................................10
-BACKGROUND OF CRICKLORD ACADEMY-...........................................................10
-ROADMAP-.......................................................................................................................10
-STATEMENT OF ISSUES-...................................................................................................11
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-..........................................................................................12
-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-...............................................................................................13
1.CRICKLORD ACADEMY IS NOT LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.......13
2. SANGWAN SPORTSTM IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION......................................19
3. SANGWAN SPORT’S PLEA FOR REFUND SHOULD BE REJECTED................24
-PRAYER-...............................................................................................................................25

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 2

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-

AC Appeal Cases
A.I.R All India Reporter
All ER All England law reports
Assn Association
B&C Barnwell and Crefwell
CEO Chief Executive Officer
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. That is
KB Kings Bench
Ltd. Limited
M&W Meeson and Weldy
para Paragraph
QB Queen’s bench
QBD Queen’s bench Division
r/w Read with
s. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Weekly Reports
TM Trade mark
TN Tamil Nadu
UKPC Privy Council
v. Versus
UB Upper Bench
u/s Under section

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 3

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

Cases:
AF Ferguson v. Lalit Mohan Ghosh - AIR 1954 SC 44(H)

(14)

Bishamder Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand - [1998] All LJ 1218(SB)

(15)

Bromage v.Prosser - [1828] 4 B&C 247

(17)

Brunswick v. Harmer - [1849] 14 QBD 185

(19)

Cairns v Modi - [2012] EWCA Civ 1382

(20)

Capital and Counties Bank v. Senti - [1887] LR 7 AC 741

(18)

Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani - AIR 1993 SC 1742

(15)

China Cotton Exporters v. Bihari Lal Ramchandra Cotton Mills Ltd. - AIR 1961 SC 1295

(15)

Colles Cranes India Ltd. V. Speedeo Spares Corp. - AIR 1970 cal 321

(15)

Dickxon v.Holden - [1869] LR EQ 488

(18)

Greville v. Chapman - [1844] 5 QB 131

(17)

Hulton v. Jones - [1910] AC 20

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 4

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
(17)

Jack Monroe v. Katie Hopkings - [2017] EWHC 433 QD

(18)

John v MGN Ltd. - [1997] QB 586

(20)

Krell v. Henry. - [1903] 2 KB 740

(14)

Maritime National Fish Ltd. V.Ocean Trawlers Ltd - [1935] UKPC 1

(14)

Miss Violet Wapshare v. Miss Maureen Shroud - [1970] LW (CR) 4

(17)

N. Chandrasekar v.TN Cricket Assn. - AIR 2006

(14)

Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra - [1967] AIR ,1 1966 SCR(3) 744

(19)

Paper Sales Ltd. V. Chokhani Dros - AIR 1946 Bom 429

(15)

Parmitter v. Coupland - [1840] 6 M&W 105

(17)

Pullman v. Hill - [1891] 1 QB 524

(19)

Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram - [1954] SCR 310

(13)

Silikin v. Beaber Brook Newspapers - [1958] 2 All ER 536

(19)

Sim v. Stretali - [1936] 2 All ER 1237

(17)

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 5

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Sim v. Stretch - [1936] 2 All ER 1233

(18)

Sturt v. Blagg - [1847] 10 UB 906

(17)

Taylor v. Cadwell. - [1863] 3 B & S 826

(14)

The Naihati JuteMill Ltd. v. Hyaliram Jagannath - AIR 1968 522

(14)

Turney V.Metro Golwim Myor Pictures Ltd. - [1950] 1 All ER 449

(17)

Books:

Indian Contract Act with commentary ,critical and explanatory

Website:
Indiankanoon.com

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 6

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 7

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The Respondent i.e. Cricklord Academy has approached the Hon’ble Civil Court of Narnia
u/s 9 r/w sec 15,19,20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent reserves the right to
rebut the same. Sec. 73,74 and 75 that allows the counsel to proceed the court.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 8

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-STATEMENTS OF FACTS-

-BACKGROUND OF SANGWAN SPORTSTM-

Sangwan SportsTM is a private company which produces cricket equipments in Hogwarts

Republic and is a well reputed company with head office in Narnia. The company uses
special technique for making bats and wickets.

-BACKGROUND OF CRICKLORD ACADEMY-

Cricklord Academy, an academy in northern region of Hogwarts, trains cricket players,

organizes matches including annual national cricket tournament for U-21 and U-19 category
where teans from all over Hogwarts participate.

-ROADMAP-

DATES EVENTS
5-9 Nov.,2019 Annual National Cricket Tournament
20 Sept.,2019 Entered into contract with Cricklord Academy for supplying 200 kits at
the price of Rs.600000/-
25 Oct.,2019 The date by which all the kits need to be supplied by
5 Oct.,2019 50 kits were delivered.
7 Oct.,2019 Sangwan Sports got a notice from Crickord Academy about the lack of
quality of bats and wickets.
10 Oct.,2019 Manufacturing resumed in the presence of quality check inspector.
13 Oct.,2019 50 bats and wickets delivered to Cricklord Academy again .
21 Oct.,2019 Fire broke out in the Head office and manufacturing unit of Sangwan
Sports at around 7:00 p.m.
23 Oct.,2019 Cricklord Academy came to know about the incident and assumed the
contract with Sangwan Sports was impossible and gave contract to
Ardhaan Sports Goods Corporation.
27 Oct.,2019 Press conference called by CEO and Board of Directors of Sangwan
Sports.
28 Oct.,2019 Sangwan Sports filed a suit against Cricklord Academy for Breach of
Contract and asking for compensation under clause (h) of the contract.
30 Oct.,2019 A cross suit against Sangwan Sports for defamation by Cricklord
Academy.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 9

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-STATEMENT OF ISSUES-

-ISSUE 1-

Whether the Cricklord Academy is liable for the Breach of Contract?

-ISSUE 2-

Whether Sangwan SportsTM can be made liable for defamation?

-ISSUE3-

Whether Sangwan SportsTM is entitled to their claim under clause(H) of the contract?

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 10

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-

1.
THE CRICKLORD ACADEMY IS LIABLE FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant is not liable for breach of
contract because in case of breach of contract Cricklord Academy as per the contract
performed the first part of giving advance and next checking the quality and appointing the
inspector but as the contract could no longer be performed due to frustration. The academy
was bound to deviate.

2.
SANGWAN SPORTSTM CAN BE MADE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION

It is a humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the instant case this Court should
held Sangwan Sports liable for defamation because the allegations made by Sangwan Sports
were false of the virtue of the contention.

3.
SANGWAN SPORTSTM IS NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR CLAIM UNDER
CLAUSE(H) OF THE CONTRACT

It is a humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the instant case this Court should
rejectSangwan Sport’s plea for refund of the money paid and it is not entitled to any damages
because the contract could no longer be performed by Sangwan Sport due to fire and as there
was no breach no damages arises.

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 11

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

1.CRICKLORD ACADEMY IS NOT LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Defendants that in the instant case Cricklord
Academy is not liable for breach of contract. This contention in humbly advanced in fold
manner firstly, that in the first case a valid contract existed; secondly, performance and
excuse for non-performance; thirdly, breach and lastly damages.

1.1 There existed a valid contract between Sangwan sportsTM and Cricklord Academy

To advance this proposition the Counsel for Appellants wants to bring the attention of the
court on the submissions mentioned herein below:

A. Understanding the definition of contract

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Appellants that the definition of contract is given
under section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 18721 which provides: “An agreement
enforceable by law is a contract”. Thus a contract is an agreement made between two or more
parties which is enforceable by law. Thus in this connection the Counsel for Appellants
would rely on the essentials for a valid contract.

B. There existed a valid Offer and valid Acceptance between the parties 

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Appellants that for a valid contract to exist there
must be a lawful offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement. The adjective
‘lawful’ implies that the offer and acceptance must satisfy the requirements of the contract act
in relation thereto. The offer or proposal is defined under section 2(a) of the Indian Contract
Act,18722which provides “When one person will signify to another person his willingness to
do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such
an act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal”. Section 2(b) of the Act3 provides that
“When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is
1
Indian Contract Act 1872,s2(h)
2
Indian Contract Act 1872,s2(a)
3
Indian Contract Act 1872,s2(b)

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 12

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise”. In the instant case, the
academy placed an order of cricket kits to SangwanSportsTMand which was duly accepted by
the Sangwan SportsTM by signing the contract.

C. Intention to create a legal relationship

It is humble submission of the Counsel for Appellants that there was a clear intention among
the parties that the agreement should be attached by legal consequences and create a legal
obligation as contract that was prepared by the representatives of both the parties was duly
signed by both the parties.

D. Lawful Consideration- (Quid Pro Quo) applies to this case

It is humble submission of the Counsel for Appellants that the fourth essential element of the
valid contract is a consideration. The term consideration has been defined under section
2(d) of the act4 which states “When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other
person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or
to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called consideration for
the promise” and quot. that in the instant case the consideration was lawful as Sangwan
SportsTM entered into a contract with Cricklord Academy for supplying 200 kits at the price
of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the academy.

E. Competent parties

It is humble submission of the Counsel for Appellants that as Section 11 5 of the act declares
that “Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law
to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by
any law to which he is subject”. Section 11 of the Act 6 states the criteria of parties competent
to contract, which is as follows:

1) Must attain the age of majority and the companies who have been a part of this in
the instant case have been in existence for a very long time and the CEO’s (Chief
Executive Officer) and other members are major.

4
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 2(d)
5
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 11
6
Ibid

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 13

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
2) Person of sound mind. Here the companies qualify as artificial persons and they are
qualified as sound mind.  
3) The person should not be disqualified by law. In the instant case none of the company
is disqualified by law. 

F. Free consent

It is humble submission of Counsel for Appellants that free consent of the parties is another
essential of the contract. According to Section 147 of the Act the term free consent is defined
as “Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by-

1) coercion, as defined in section 158, or

2) undue influence, as defined in section 169, or
3) fraud, as defined in section 1710, or
4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 1811, or
5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22.12
Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the
existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.” In
the instant case the contract was developed by the representatives of both the parties
and signed mutually by both the parties.13

G. Lawful object 

It is humble submission of Counsel for Defendants that as written in the Indian Contract Act
1872,14 for the formation of a contract, it is also necessary that the parties to an agreement
must agree to a lawful.

1.2 Non-performance on the part of Sangwan Sports and performance on the part of
Cricklord Academy

7
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 14
8
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 15
9
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 16
10
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 17
11
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 18
12
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 19
13
Moot Proposition,para3
14
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 10

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 14

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
To advance the proposition, the counsel for Defendants wants to bring attention of the court
to the submissions mentioned below:

A. Non-performance on the part of Sangwan Sports

To advance the proposition, the counsel for Defendants wants to bring attention of the court
to the submissions mentioned below:

i)Sangwan Sports got to know about the contract of Cricklord Academy with Ardhaan
Sports Goods Corporation after the date of the contract

It is a humble submission before this Hon’ble Court that the the remaining 150 kits were to
be supplied to Cricklord Academy on 25 October 2019.But the Sangwan Sports came to
know about the contract between Cricklord Academy and Ardhaan Sports Goods Corporation
on 26 October 2019. Therefore, Sangwan Sports was bound to deliver the goods on 25
October 2019. So, it was not a breach on the part of Cricklord Academy.15

ii)Doctrine of Frustration

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as general rule parties to contract are
having an intention towards thefulfilment of their part and in case of breach, party breaching
is liable tocompensate for the same. But an exception to this rule is laid down in Section56 of
the Indian Contract Act,187216. Section 5617 deals with the doctrine offrustration as being acts
which cannot be performed. Under this doctrine apromisor is relieved of any liability under a
contract in the event of the breachof contract and contract will be deemed to be void.

Section 5618 is based on the maxim “ les non cogit ad impossibilia” whichmeans that the law
will not compel a man to do what he cannotbe possibly perform.The basis of the doctrine of
frustration was explained by Supreme Court in thecase of  Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram19 
in which Justice Mukherjee held thatthe basic idea upon which doctrine of frustration is based
is that of theimpossibility of performance of the contract and the expression frustration
andimpossibility can also be used as synonyms.This particular situation dealswith those cases
where there was no physical impossibility of performance ofthe contract, but because of the

15
Moot Proposition,para 12
16
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 56
17
Ibid
18
Ibid
19
[1954] SCR 310

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 15

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
change in circumstances, the main purpose forwhich the contract was entered has been
defeated.

1) There must be some part of the contract which is yet to beperformed:- Section 56 will
have applicability only if there is some partof the contract which is yet to be
performed and without performing itthe ultimate purpose of the contract is not
fulfilled.
2) The contract after it is entered into becomes impossible ofperformance:- Another
important condition for the application ofsection 56 is that the contract after it has
been entered into hasbecome impossible to perform and cannot be performed and
therefore, contract stands void.

THE CONTRACT WAS FRUSTRATED DUE TO AN EMERGENCY

As per Indian Contract Act,20 doctrine of frustration states that any act which was to be
performed after the contract is made becomes unlawful or impossible to perform and which
the promisor could not prevent, then such an act which becomes impossible or unlawful will
be void. Thus, when a day before the concert, building of concert is burnt to ashes, organizers
of concert are not liable for damages to the ticket buyers in Taylor v. Cadwell.21 Similarly,
when view of the king‟s procession from a rented house window is obstructed, purchasers of
tickets cannot claim damages because of frustration of contract.Krell v. Henry.22 In fact, a
contract may be frustrated due to change in the policies of the government, The Naihati Jute
Mill Ltd. v. Hyaliram Jagannath23&Maritime National Fish Ltd. V.Ocean Trawlers
Ltd24.destruction of subject matter, death or incapacity of a party N. Chandrasekar v.TN
Cricket Assn.25 and intervention due to war AF Ferguson v. Lalit Mohan Ghosh 26
In the
present case, as the was fire in the manufacturing unit of the Sangwan Sports the kits could
not be received.27

iii)Time is the essence of the contract.

20
Indian Contract Act 1872,S 56
21
[1863] 3 B & S 826
22
[1903] 2 KB 740
23
AIR 1968 522
24
[1935] UKPC 1
25
AIR 2006
26
AIR 1954 SC 44(H)
27
Moot Proposition,para 11

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 16

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Section 55 of Indian contact Act, 187228 stipulates that where time is the essence of the
contract, failureto perform at or before the specified time, entitles the promisee to avoid the
contract as stated in Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mullah,29 In commercialor business contracts
where performance is provided within specified time, time is presumed to be theessence of
the contract in China Cotton Exporters v. Bihari Lal Ramchandra Cotton Mills Ltd.30 The
party wronged is entitled to damages for breach of contract in Colles Cranes India Ltd. V.
Speedeo Spares Corp.31& Paper Sales Ltd. V. Chokhani Dros 32.If anyagreement states that a
particular act relating to the contracts is to be done within the particular time ormanner, it
should be done in that manner or time and it is not the rights of the parties to perform it isown
his manner or time according to themMaking of time as the essence of a contract may
beinferred from the nature of the contract, the property or the surrounding circumstances in
Bishamder Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand33. Only in thecase of sale of immovable property
there is no presumption as to time being the essence of thecontract Chand Rani v. Kamal
Rani34 Under the clause of deliverables and milestones.

Sangwan sports were given the contract to deliver 200 kits as per the contract but as per their
claim they only have 130 kits at their zirakpur godown, as decided the 50 kits whose quality
was not upto the mark those kits had to be made again but that could not be done.35

B. Performance on the part of Cricklord Academy

‘Performance of contract’ means fulfilment of the obligations by the parties. The parties who
make the contract must fulfil their obligations according to the terms laid down in the
contract. Performance of contract is one of the methods to discharge of contract. After the
contract is discharged the parties do not have any further rights in liability against each other.
According to section 3736 the parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform
their respective promises unless such performance is dispensed with or excuse under the
provisions of contract act or of any other law.

28
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 55
29
Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mullah, Indian Contract Act,174(Lexis Nexis, 13th ed. 2011)
30
AIR 1961 SC 1295
31
AIR 1970 cal 321
32
AIR 1946 Bom 429
33
[1998] All LJ 1218(SB)
34
AIR 1993 SC 1742
35
Moot Proposition,para 13
36
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 37

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 17

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Cricklord as per the contract performed the first part of giving advance and next checking the
quality and appointing the inspector but as the contract could no longer be performed due to
frustration. The academy was bound to deviate.

1.3 BREACH AND DAMAGES

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Defendants that this fold has been discussed in
the third issue.

2. SANGWAN SPORTSTM IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Defendants that in the instant case Sangwan
SportsTM is liable for defamation. This contention in humbly advanced in a twofold manner:
firstly, essentials of defamation; secondly, compensation for the defamation.

2.1 Essentials of defamation

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Sangwan Sports TM is liable for
defamation owing to a malicious propaganda. The counsel would humbly request the hon’ble
court to bring their due attention to the essentials of defamation mentioned herein below- The
statement made was defamatory (A); the statement referred to the respondent(B); the
statement was published (C).

A. The statement made was defamatory

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the statement made by Sangwan
SportsTMin press conference was “It is very saddening how some associations instead of
standing with us in our hard times betrayed us & backed out from the very contract that
bound us. We, from now onwards shall be more vigilant, keeping in mind the associations,
we shall never cater to in future, considering their track record in failure to perform their
contracts. It is notified upon our partners that associations like these are based on tenets of
soon.”37 The words are prima facie defamatory.

1. When is a statement defamatory?

37
Moot Proposition, para 12

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 18

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
A statement is defamatory when it has the tendency to injure a persons’ reputation.
The usual definition adopted in judgements is that a defamatory statement is one
which exposes a person to ‘contempt, hatred or ridicule, or tends to injure him in his
profession or trade, or causes him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours’
Parmitter v. Coupland38.

The language used by the Sangwan SportsTM was extremely vituperative. The usage of
words such as ‘betrayers’, ‘tenets of opportunism’ was an extremely harsh comment
on the moral character of the defendant which had made the defendant suffered a
tremendous loss of reputation. It is defamatory to impute dishonesty as stated in
Greville v. Chapman39 or immorality as stated in Hulton v. Jones40 to state that a
person has not that degree of skill which he holds himself as possessing is defamatory
in Turney V.Metro Golwim Mayor Pictures Ltd.41
2. Malicious propaganda
The Sangwan SportsTM had a malicious propaganda, which is evident by the fact that
the mode used by the plaintiff for defaming was the press conference which has the
capability of reaching to thousands of people within a short span of time. Mode of the
publication is an important test for determining that the words are defamatory in Sturt
v. Blagg42.Malice is implied from publication of a defamatory statement in Bromage
v.Prosser43.

The publication when made with the intention of defaming someone constitutes
defamation in Miss Violet Wapshare v. Miss Maureen Shroud44.It has been held in
Sim v. Stretali45-“The test of a defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to
excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinions or feeling of other persons. The
typical form of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff
attributing to him any form of disgraceful conduct.” The statements were defamatory
in their natural and ordinary meaning as it excited adverse opinion or feelings of other
persons against the defendant which was evident as they said it is notified upon our
38
[1840] 6 M&W 105
39
[1844] 5 QB 131
40
[1910] AC 20
41
[1950] 1 All ER 449
42
[1847] 10 UB 906
43
[1828] 4 B&C 247
44
[1970] LW (CR) 4
45
[1936] 2 All ER 1237

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 19

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
partners and associations that associations like these are tenets of betrayal and
opportunism. The incident gathered widespread condemnation on the internet which
held public hatred, contempt and had hampered the business of the Cricklord
Academy.

The statement is defamatory if it conveys a defamatory meaning about the Sangwan

SportsTM to reasonable men placed on the position of those to whom it was published
in Capital and Counties Bank v. Senti 46. The standard of understanding is that of the
ordinary, reasonable man. Whether that meaning is defamatory depends on whether it
would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way that right-thinking
members of society would treat the defendant in the case of Jack Monroe v. Katie
Hopkins47.
3. Right of a person to the unimpaired possession of his reputation
The right of a person during his lifetime to the unimpaired possession of his
reputation and good name is recognized by law. Everyone has an inherent right to
have his reputation preserved inviolate. It is a jus in rem a right absolute and good
against all the world. A man’s reputation is his property and possibly more valuable
than any other form of property in Dixon v. Holden48.

The right of the Cricklord Academy is violated by the Sangwan Sports TM. The phrase
-tenets of betrayal and opportunism, degrades the efficiency of the defendant. It
implies the inability of the defendant in attaining good standards which is certainly
not the case. The plaintiff didn’t stop here and used the word ‘’ which is extremely
vulgar and disparaging. The plaintiff has no right to use such derogatory words.

The Sangwan SportsTM had published a statement which had brought the defendant
into hatred, contempt or ridicule and lowered the reputation in the eyes of right-
thinking members of society generally in Sim v. Stretch49.

In light of the statements made above, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court , that
the Cricklord Academy has suffered tremendously on account of having its image lowered in

46
[1887] LR 7 AC 741
47
[2017] EWHC 433 QD
48
[1869] LR EQ 488
49
[1936] 2 All ER 1233

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 20

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
the eyes of public because of the false and defamatory statements published by the Sangwan
SportsTM in press conference.

B. The statement referred to the Cricklord Academy

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the derogatory statements used by the
Cricklord Academy clearly referred to the Cricklord Academy which is evident by the fact
that the Sangwan SportsTM had started the statement with the clear indication to Cricklord
Academy. Hence, all the statements were directed towards the Cricklord Academy.

Every man whether he is in public life or not, is entitled not to have lies told about him and
by that is meant that one is not entitled to make misstatement of facts about a person which
are untrue and which redound to his discredit. That is to say it tends to lower him in the
estimation of right- thinking men in Silikin v. Beaber Brook Newspapers50.

C. The statement was published

A man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he
entertains about himself. The attack on his reputation will therefore follow when the words
calculated to harm his reputation are communicated to some third party i.e., to some person
other than the person defamed, and in law this communication of defamatory words to a third
party is termed publication. “Publication is the making known the defamatory matter after it
has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written” as stated in
Pullman v. Hill51.

As already mentioned and evident by the facts, the mode used by the Cricklord Academy for
defaming the Cricklord Academy was press conference. press conference, being two of the
largest social networking services, have the potential of reaching, number of people
worldwide within blink of an eye.

It comes under the scope of a libel. The publication of the defamatory statement by the
Sangwan sports was a disparagement in respect of the Cricklord academy professional and
official reputation. It was not made to a confined group of people but through larger media.
The Sangwan sports had called the business reputation of defendant into question by his
publication.
50
[1958] 2 All ER 536
51
[1891] 1 QB 524

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 21

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Every repetition of defamatory matter is a fresh publication and a fresh cause of action
Induke of Brunswick v. Harmer52.The Article must have been shared several hundred time.
Hence, the defamatory matter was repeated not once or twice but several times.

2.2 A public apology should be asked and the compensation for the defamatory mention

It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court that the Sangwan Sports should be asked for a public
apology and a compensation which the court may deems fit should be given to Cricklord
Academy.In Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra 53the court opined that restraint
to protect the interests of free and fair trial could not be held to be violative of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1) (a)
of the Constitution of India. This view has been concurred with in where it was stated that
freedom of speech and expression may at times amount to interference with administration of
justice and in such cases where there is a conflict between liberty of press and administration
of justice, the former is subordinate to the latter.

A claimant who succeeds in establishing liability in 13–116 defamation is entitled to

compensatory damages to compensate him for the wrong committed by the defendant. The
leading case in this regard is John v MGN Ltd.54 Sir Thomas Bingham MR, giving the
judgment of the Court of Appeal, wrote: 348 “The successful plaintiff in a defamation action
is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him
for the wrong he has suffered. That sum must compensate him for the damage to his
reputation; vindicate his good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation
which the defamatory publication has caused.” In Cairns v Modi55 the Court of Appeal said
that these three purposes of awarding compensatory damages—repairing damage to the
claimant reputation, vindicating his name, and compensating him for the distress caused—are
relevant in every case.

3.SANGWAN SPORT’S PLEA FOR REFUND SHOULD BE REJECTED

It is a humble submission of the Counsel for Defendants that in the instant case this Court
should reject tSangwan Sport’s plea for refund of the money paid and it is not entitled to any
damages. As already proved above, Cricklord Academy deviated because the contract could
52
[1849] 14 QBD 185
53
[1967] AIR ,1 1966 SCR(3) 744
54
[1997] QB 586
55
[2012] EWCA Civ 1382

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 22

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
no longer be performed by Sangwan Sport due to the fire that broke out in their
manufacturing unit. Thus, there can be no rescission of the contract on those grounds and no
claiming of compensation as a result as this led the contract to be void. Thus, Sangwan Sport
will not be entitled to get damages, as envisaged under section 73 56 andsection 7557 of the
Contract Act, on this ground. It deals with cases where the contract was possible to perform
when it was entered but because of some event, the performance has become impossible or
unlawful and therefore it discharges the party from performing it. Moreover, it was Sangwan
Sports who did not perform the act as it received the information about another contract on 26
October 2019 and not on or before25 October 2019, the day decided for delivery of the kits.

-PRAYER-

56
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 73
57
Indian Contract Act 1872,s 75

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 23

 UILS INTRA DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated , issues raised , authorities cited & arguments advanced
, it ismost humbly prayed & implored before the Hon’ble District Court of Narnia , that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge & declare:
A.  That Cricklord Academy is not liable for Breach of Contract;
B. That Sangwan SportsTMis liable for defamation;
C. That Sangwan SportsTM is not entitled to their claim under clause (H) of the contract.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, writ or direction as this Hon’ble Civil Court deems fit and proper, in the
interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this act of kindness, the appellant shall duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

 ___________________________________
___________________________________ 

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR DEFENDANT Page 24