VIDHITVA’19 (FRESHER’S MOOT COURT COMPETITION)

BEFORE

THE LEARNED CIVIL COURT OF RANCHI

AT RANCHI, JHARKHAND
_____________________________________________________________________

CIVIL SUIT NO.: ____XXX__ 2019

UNDER SECTIONS 9, 15, 19, 20 OF
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
READ WITH SECTION 13 OF
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
_____________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

MS. LEELA SHETH………….……………………………………….………

PLAINTIFF

v.

CENTRAL PERK, RANCHI…….

…………………………………………...DEFENDANT
 MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................7

ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................12

PRAYER................................................................................................................................17

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 1

 ABBREVIATIONS

SCC Supreme Court Case

v Versus
SCR Supreme Court Record

AIR All India Record

i.e. In Essence
& And

VOL. Volume

CPC Civil Procedure Code

LTD. Limited

CORP. Corporation

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 2

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
 THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

LIST OF BOOKS

 POLLOCK AND MULLA, THE INDIA N CONTRACT ACT (LEXIS NEXIS, 14TH
EDITION 2013)
 AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF (EBC, 12TH ED. 2017)
 LAW RELATING TO ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS-R.K. SINGH (2013)

WEB SOURCES
 www.westlaw.india.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com

LIST OF CASES
 DCM Ltd v. Assistant engineer AIR 1988 Raj 64, 1987 (2) WLN 538
 Henderson v. Stevenson (1843) 3 Hare 100,67 ER 313
 Krell v. Henry (1903) 2 KB 740 (CA)
 Lily White v. Munuswami AIR 1966 Mad 13,(1965) 1 MLJ 7
 Robinsion v. Davison (1871) LR 6 Exch 269: 40 LJ Ex 172: 24 LT 755:
(1861-73) All ER Rep 699
 Sachindra Nath v. Gopal Chandra, AIR 1949 Cal 240.
 Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163 (CA)
 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co, AIR 1954 SC 44: 1954 SCR
310.
 Specht v. Netscape Comms. Corp. 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir) 2002

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 3

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the Plaintiff in Civil Suit no. ____/ 2019, submits to the jurisdiction
of this Learned Civil court under section 91, 152, 193 & 204 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 read with section 135 of the Information of Technology, Act 2000.

1
The Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
2
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
3
Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables : Where a suit is for compensation for
wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for
gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the
option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts
4
3Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises -Subject to the
limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time
of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of
the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants
who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises
5
13. Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic record.-
(1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, the despatch of an
electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator.
(2) Save as otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, the time of receipt of an
electronic record shall be determined as follows, namely:-
(a) if the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic
records,-
(i) receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource; or
(ii) if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource of the addressee that is not the designated
computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record is retrieved by the
addressee;
(b) if the addressee has not designated a computer resource along with specified timings, if any,
receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee.
(3) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, an electronic record is
deemed to be despatched at the place where the originator has his place of business, and is deemed
to be received at the place where the addressee has his place of business.
(4) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply notwithstanding that the place where the computer
resource is located may be different from the place where the electronic record is deemed to have
been received under sub-section (3).
(5) For the purposes of this section,-
(a) if the originator or the addressee has more than one place of business, the principal place of
business, shall be the place of business;
(b) if the originator or the addressee does not have a place of business, his usual place of residence
shall be deemed to be the place of business;

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 4

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND:
Central Perk is one of biggest restaurant chains in India. It had its first outlet in
Ranchi and now there are close to 20 restaurants across India. The highlights of this
place apart from its excellent service and fusion food is the live performances by
various artists from across India. The procedure for those who were interested in the
job was that they have to fill the agreement present under the Contract Tab of the
restaurant’s website available online. The agreement for employment ended with the
artist clicking on I agree button with a Clause 32 stating that: Kindly click on I Agree
button to enter into a contract with us. This would imply that you have given consent
to each and every term of this Contract. In the end there was a small asterisk mark
beside the Registered Paytm Number Clause which was mentioned in the end of the
agreement in fine print below the I Agree Button which read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything an employee absent for performing without a minimum two
days’ notice intimidating the relevant authority about the reasons for the same would
become liable to pay reasonable compensation to the employer. The amount would
be deducted from the Paytm wallet of the employer.
FORMATION OF CONTRACT:
On 22.07.19 Ms Leela Sheth( (who was previously also a part of two employment
agreements which used e-contract) went on to the website of the restaurant and
entered into an agreement with them by clicking on I Agree. Her performances were
scheduled on 28.07.19 and 01.08.19. While returning home on the night of 28.07.19
after giving her first performance at the restaurant, she met with an accident
fracturing her Right Leg along with few other bruises. She returned home from
hospital on 30.07.19. Due to her broken leg she was not able perform at the
restaurant and when on 01.08.19 she called to notify the manager about the same,
the call was unanswered.

CAUSE OF ACTION:
On the same night, she received a message from her Paytm that a sum of INR 6000
had been deducted from her wallet and paid to Central Perk. Ms. Leela filed a suit
against them demanding refund of the sum deducted from her account without her

(c) "usual place of residence", in relation to a body corporate, means the place where it is registered.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 5

consent under an invalid contract. She stated that she had only linked her Paytm
Wallet with the Restaurant for receiving her Monthly salary.

ISSUES RAISED

1.WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW

THE PRESENT CONTRACT WAS VITIATED DUE TO FLAW IN THE CONSENT?

2.WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESENT CONTRACT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO
FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT
ACT 1872?

3.WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW

THE PRESENT CONTRACT WAS VOID ON THE GROUNDS OF UNREASONABLE
TERMS?

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 6

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE

CONTRACT IS VITIATED DUE TO FLAW IN THE CONSENT

The counsel would like to humbly and respectfully submit before the court that suit
filed by the plaintiff is maintainable due to the absence of an unqualified and absolute
consent on the plaintiff’s part. One of the essentials of a valid contract is that the
parties should enter into the contract with their free consent. Two or more persons are
said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense i.e. consensus
ad idem6.Contract is unenforceable on the ground of flaw in consent. In online
contract, the consent is said not free when it is dominated by three factors, namely: (1)
Fraud (2) Misrepresentation and (3) Mistake and thus on the grounds of mistake as to
the subject matter the present contract is unenforceable.

2.THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE

PERFORMANCE OF PRESENT CONTRACT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO

FRUSTRATION OF THE CONTRACT.

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before this Court that the suit filed by the
plaintiff is maintainable under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.The
plaintiff could not have prevented the unforeseeable event with reasonable diligence
and thus is not entitled to give any compensation to the respondent (which is
otherwise demanded in case of foreseeable events) and thus due to non-performance
of the contract the contract becomes impossible which results in it being invalid.

3.THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PRESENT
CONTRACT IS VOID ON THE GROUND OS UNREASONABLE TERMS.

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before this court that the contract formed
between the plaintiff and the defendant gives rise to the Doctrine of
Unconscionability. Unconscionability is a contract defence used in cases where there
6
Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: “Consent” defined - Two or more person are said to
consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 7

is combination of unfair contract terms and deficient bargaining and this term have
the persuasive value. As unreasonable terms were inflicted upon the plaintiff by the
defendant and the Inequality of Bargaining Power was also present in the given
agreement, constitute the contract invalid.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 8

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(1) THAT THE CONTRACT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE AND THUS IS SAID TO BE VOID
UNDER SECTION 2(G) OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that the contract is not enforceable.
Mistake means an erroneous belief about something. Mistake or error makes the
contract void i.e. it is not enforceable at the option of either party. Mistake may
operate upon a contract in two ways: It may defeat the consent altogether or it may
mislead the parties as to the purpose which they contemplated 7.Broadly speaking,
certain facts are essential to the agreement, viz. identification of parties, subject
matter of contract and nature of promise. Fundamental error does not prevent a
contract from coming into existence unless there is mistake as to the identity of other
party-as opposed to this attribute, as to the substance of the subject-matter-as opposed
to its qualities, or as to the nature of transaction as opposed to its terms. Mistake could
be a mistake of law or a mistake of fact. The general principle of contract clearly
states that a mistake of law is no excuse to avoid contractual obligations. The only
exception to this principle would be a mistake of foreign law. A mistake of foreign
law would render the contract void.A mistake of fact can take place in three ways
common mistake, mutual mistake and unilateral mistake. The plea of non-est factum
i.e., absence of consent, is available for all such mistakes. Considering the
complexities involved in online transaction where the likelihood of the occurrence of
mistakes is very high, the plea of non est factum can be made available as provided in
general principles of contract. And hereby following this principle the plaintiff in the
present case was under a wrong belief which was subject to the matter of making the
contract that a minimum two days’ notice is required to be given so as to intimidate
the relevant authority about the reasons for the absence or the employee (i.e. the
plaintiff here) would become liable to pay reasonable compensation to the employer
which would be deducted from the Paytm wallet of the employer. The mistake on
behalf of the plaintiff can also be attributed to the fact that the clause was mentioned
at the end of the agreement in fine print and was not a usual condition of employment
7
This case falls under Section 20: Mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement. The
mistake in cause for the contract i.e., “error in cause” (on account of one party’s fraud) makes the
contract voidable only. Section 20 will come into operation: (i) When both the parties to an
agreement are mistaken; (ii) Their mistake is as to a matter of fact; and (iii) that fact is essential to the
agreement.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 9

agreement as seen from the fact that the plaintiff had been a life performer previously
for two other restaurants who also used E-Contract for employment agreement but she
was not still aware of the same. Lord DENNING MR pointed out in Thornton v. Shoe
Lane Parking Ltd8 that “The individual can hardly bargain with the massive
organisation and therefore his only function is to accept the offer whether he likes the
terms or not. He cannot alter those terms or even discuss them; they are for him to
take or leave. In yet another case of Specht v. Netscape Comms. Corp9 it was observed
that the contracting party clicked on the a button which stated that clicking on this
button would mean acceptance of the contract, then the contracting party could not
later refute the terms of the contract stating that he wasn’t aware of them. However, in
this case, the contract mentioned that by downloading the defendant’s software, the
plaintiff had agreed to the terms of the agreed. This particular statement was
mentioned in the contract however, it was nowhere mentioned near the download
button, the plaintiff was hence unaware that downloading the software would make
them subject to the license agreement. The court of appeals held that the defendant
failed to make the contractual nature of the “Download Button” obvious and hence
forth the plaintiff were not subject to the terms of the License Agreement. Similarly,
the new procedure was that those interested in the job would have to fill the
agreement present under the Contract Tab of the restaurant’s website available online.
Several other Tabs such as Business, Legal etc were present at the top right corner of
the website and The Legal Tab had exhaustive information regarding the agreement
and its nuances. The information to sign the agreement was mentioned in yet other tab
of the website and not anywhere mentioned under the contract tab thus making the
plaintiff unaware of the exact terms and conditions of the argument and the liability
that could be imposed on him.
He therefore does not undertake the laborious task of discovering what the terms are.”
The standard form contract is standardized contracts that contain a large number of
terms and conditions in fine print, which restrict and often exclude liability under the
contract. This gives a unique opportunity to the giant companies to exploit the
weakness of the individual by imposing upon him terms which often looks like a kind
of private legislation and which may go to the extent of exempting the company from
all liability under contracts.

8
(1971) 2 QB 163 (CA)
9
306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir) 2002

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 10

These kinds of elements which shows inadequacy in the manner of notifying unusual
terms and undue power of one party goes against the basic nature of contract. And
thus, the contract turns void.

(2) THAT THE CONTRACT BECOMES FRUSTRATED UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that the contract is frustrated. The
doctrine of frustration comes into play when a contract becomes impossible of
performance, after it was made, on account of circumstances beyond the control of
parties10.The doctrine suggests that the performance of the contract maybe quite
possible when it is made by the parties but some event subsequently happens, that the
contract becomes void ,which means occurrence of an intervening event or change of
circumstances so fundamental, as to be regarded by law as striking the root of the
argument in its entirety. Some delay is common in all human affairs however
frustration of contract occurs when the change in circumstances upset altogether the
purpose of the contract11.The concept of the principal is not limited to physical
impossibilities but extends when the object the parties have in mind cannot be
materialised12.
A party to a contract is also excused from performance if it depends upon the
existence of a given person, if that person perishes or becomes too ill to perform.
Thus, where the nature or terms of a contract require personal performance by the
promisor, his death or incapacity puts an end to the contract as seen in the case of
Robinson v Davison13. There was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant’s
wife, who was an eminent pianist, that she should play the piano at a concert to be
given by the plaintiff on a specified day. On the morning of the day in question she
informed the plaintiff that she was too ill to attend the concert. The concert had to be
postponed and the plaintiff lost a sum of money. The plaintiff’s action for breach of
contract failed. The court said that under the circumstances she was not merely
excused from playing, but she was also not at liberty to play, if she was unfit to do so.
The contract was clearly subject to the condition of her being well enough to perform:
“The whole contract is based on the assumption of the continuance of life, and on the

10
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co, AIR 1954 SC 44: 1954 SCR 310.
11
Sachindra Nath v. Gopal Chandra, AIR 1949 Cal 240.
12
Krell v. Henry (1903) 2 KB 740 (CA)
13
(1871) LR 6 Exch 269: 40 LJ Ex 172: 24 LT 755: (1861-73) All ER Rep 699.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 11

conditions, which existed at the time. That assumption is made by both; it is really the
foundation of the contract. It does not require close reasoning to prove that if the
foundation fails, the whole contract must fail. The foundation was wanting for there
was on Mrs Davidson’s part an entire and total incapacity to do the thing contracted
for.” Thus, we use this case to substantiate our point that in the present case the
plaintiff met with an accident fracturing her right leg along with few other bruises and
returned home from hospital on 30.07.2019. Even though if the plaintiff would have
intimidated the relevant authorities about the non-performance in time, she could not
have prevented the contract from getting frustrated as under any circumstances she
could not have performed on 01.08. 2019.Thus the contract to do an impossible act
becomes void.

(3) THAT THE PRESENT CONTRACT IS VOID ON THE GROUND OF

UNREASONABLE TERMS.

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that the contract is void. The Doctrine
of Unconscionability arises due to difference in the bargaining position of the parties,
absence of meaningful choice, unfair surprise. In Weaver v. Am. Oil Co, the Court
explained various factors that can be considered while evaluating procedural
unconscionability such as real and voluntary meeting of the minds of the contracting
parties, age, educational qualifications, intelligence, relative bargaining power, who
drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, the
deceptive appearance or language to the contract. There are plethora of case laws
available on the subject of Unconscionability of contracts. Most prominent of all
relates to clauses of Employment Agreement wherein the contract, in most of the
cases, are poor drafted, thus favouring the employer. The employers provide
unreasonable clauses in employment contracts and impose very unfair conditions on
the employees. An example of unreasonable term is to be found in Lily White v.
Munuswami14, the plaintiff in this case gave a new saree and a blouse, to the firm of
the revision petitioner for dry cleaning. The revision petitioners undertook to dry
clean the articles and re deliver it. Admittedly, the saree was never redelivered, and
the plaintiff in essence claimed the market value of the entrusted articles. The
defendant gave the defence that on the reverse side of the bill, which is generally
14
AIR 1966 Mad 13,(1965) 1 MLJ 7

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 12

handed over by the firm to customer while receiving articles for dry cleaning certain
conditions are printed. Under condition 2, the customer was entitled to claim only
50% of the market price or value of the articles, in case of loss. The learned judge
observed that the condition relating to restriction of the claim to 50% to the market
price,” is not enforceable on the ground of unreasonable terms and public policy. It is
opposed to the fundamental principle of law of contract. Where a condition is
particularly onerous or unusual, a clear, fair and reasonable effort shall be made to
bring such terms to the attention of the party concerned and here in the present case
the defendant failed to notify the unusual terms in an appropriate manner. Thus, we
use this case to substantiate our point that in the present case the defendant use the
unreasonable clause in the agreement and deducted the sum of INR 6000 without
prior notice and without deciding any pre requisite damages. It is the duty of the
person delivering the document to give adequate notice to the offeree of the printed
terms and conditions. Otherwise acceptor is not bound by these terms. In the case
Henderson v Stevenson15, it was laid down by House of Lords, it is the duty of the
person delivering a document to give adequate notice to the offeree of the printed
terms and conditions. Where this is not done, the acceptor will not be bound by the
terms. Here the plaintiff bought a steamer ticket on the face of which were these
words only: “Dublin to Whitehaven”; on the back were printed certain conditions one
of which excluded the liability of the company for loss, injury or delay to the
passenger or his luggage. The plaintiff had not seen the back of the ticket, nor was
there any indication on the face about the conditions on the back. The plaintiff’s
luggage was lost in the shipwreck caused by the fault of the company’s servants. He
was held entitled to recover his loss from the company in spite of the exemption
clauses. The house of lord observed that “the plaintiff could not be said to have
accepted a term which he has not seen, of which he knew nothing, and which is not in
any way ostensibly connected with that which is printed and written upon the face of
the contract presented to him”. By referring to this case we want to support our point
that in the present case our plaintiff is not liable for any damages howsoever caused to
the defendant and is entitled to refund of the sum deducted from her account. In DCM
Ltd v Assistant engineer16, the issue arises before the court to consider the nature of
the written agreements entered into by the consumers of the electricity with the board

15
Henderson v. Stevenson (1843) 3 Hare 100,67 ER 313
16
DCM Ltd v. Assistant engineer AIR 1988 Raj 64, 1987 (2) WLN 538

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 13

which was a monopolistic organisation and the further question whether an apparently
inconceivable and unjust term in the written contract could be enforced by the other
party and the court held in this case that the said term in the given agreement was
unreasonable and consequently the demand of such excessive minimum consumption
charges are not justified. A clickwrap-agreement, also known as click
through agreement, is an online contract that confirms a user's consent to a company's
terms and conditions. This type of contract is a substitute for a real signature and is
often used to enforce software licenses or authorize online transactions. In these
agreements the terms such as “agree” or “I accept to the terms and conditions of the
user policy” etc are used to note the acceptance and consent of the contract by the
contractee i.e. the user. Here the terms of the contract are already laid out and the
contractee has no means to negotiate these terms. These types of contracts are known
as “contracts of adhesion” where one party has a dominant stand or a position of
power and they drafts the contract and decides its terms and conditions in accordance
with their benefit.  Meyer v. Kalanick & Uber Technologies. In this case, Mr Meyer
downloaded the Uber app and registered a user account. After using the app about 10
times he brought a class action against the then Uber CEO and Uber itself, alleging
breaches of US anti-trust law, including that the Uber app allowed its drivers to
illegally fix their prices. In response Uber and Kalanick filed a motion to compel
arbitration with Meyer, based on a clause in the Uber app's T&Cs which required
users to submit to arbitration in place of court proceedings. Meyer argued that he did
not have adequate notice of the Uber app terms and conditions when signing up, so
the arbitration clause could not be enforced. The district court denied Uber’s motion
to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff did not have reasonably conspicuous
notice of and did not unambiguously manifest assent to Uber’s Terms of Service
when he registered. For a click wrap agreement to be valid it is important that it
satisfy all the essential elements. One of which is that the Specific consents must be
distinguishable from the rest of the document. The clearer and more distinguishable
the terms and consents are, the more likely an agreement will be enforceable. Thus,
we use this case to substantiate our point that in the present case the defendant’s
unreasonable terms had not been sufficiently brought to the plaintiff’s attention and
thus do not form an enforceable click wrap agreement.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 14

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
learned court may graciously be pleased to:

 Adjudge and declare that the suit is maintainable.

 Adjudge and declare that the contract is void due to frustration of contract.
 Adjudge and declare that contract is void due to use of unreasonable terms in
the contract.

And/or the court may give any such order as it may deem fit in the larger interests of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Plaintiff shall duty bound forever pay.

Sd.
Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff

Date and Place:

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 15