Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A written submission on behalf of the defendant in a civil suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the District Court of Bhilai. The plaintiff, Suresh, had received an offer from the defendant, Ramesh, to sell his customized Volkswagen Polo for INR 500,000. However, before Suresh could accept the offer, Ramesh sold the car to someone else and revoked the offer. Suresh argues that a contract was formed either through the postal application or upon delivery of the acceptance letter to Ramesh's office. The defendant contends that the revocation was valid as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872. a table of contents, list of abbreviations, index of authorities, and statements of jurisdiction, facts, issues raised, and summary of arguments.
What you will learn
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Before THE DISTRICT COURT OF BHILLAI AT BHILLAI CIVIL SUIT NO. - ____/ [UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ] SURESH……………………………………………………………………………PLAINTIFF v. RAMESH…………………………………………………………………...…….DEFENDANT WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
The defendant humbly submits the memorial in response to the petition filed by the plaintiff under the section 9^1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. (^1) Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation 1.—As suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation Il—For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.
case holding the acceptance useless the court said “ Both the principle and on authority it is clear that in absence of consideration for the promise to keep the offer open for a time, the promise is mere nudum pactum.” In the Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v_. Brimnes_^4 the court said that “If a notice arrives at the address of a person to be notified, at such time & by such a means of communication that it would in the natural course of business come to the attention of that person on its arrival, that person cannot rely on some failure of himself or his servants to act in a normal businesslike manner in respect of taking cognizance of the communication, so as to postpone the effective time of the notice until some later time when it in fact came to his attention”. As per the facts, in this case, the notice of revocation was delivered at plaintiff address which marks that the notice of revocation is effective even if there was a failure from plaintiff side for not receiving the notice. In case of Hendrick v Behee^5 it was held that “ A contract is not formed until acceptance has been communicated to the offeror. An uncommunicated intention to accept an offer is not an acceptance. Notice of acceptance is required where an offer calls for a promise from the offeree. Communication of acceptance to an agent of the offeree is not sufficient and is not a valid acceptance. An offeror may withdraw his offer at any time before acceptance and communication of that fact to him unless the offer is supported by consideration. To revoke an offer revocation must be communicated to the offeree before the offeree has accepted.” As per the facts in this case offeror withdrew his offer before the acceptance and he communicated this withdrawn by posting a letter of revocation to offeree therefore the revocation holds good. As this is quite effective from the above arguements that the revocation is valid which infers that there is no formation of contract. According to this argument the counsel pleads to court that the revocation of the offer by defendant is valid. (^4) [1974] EWCA Civ 15 (^5) 786 S.W.2d 610 (Mo.App. S.D. 1990)
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to hold, to adjudge & declare that:
