SM 18

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

ALAN ALRIGHT.………………………APPELLANT
V/S
BRIAN BLACK.……………….……......RESPONDENT

HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT

THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS APPROACHED THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 LIST OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................... 2

Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………….4

I. Books and Commentaries Referred …………………………………………………..

II. Statement Referred……………………………………………………………………..

III. Table of Cases…………………………………………………………………………..

Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................... 6

Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Issues .................................................................................................................... 10

Summary Arguments ................................................................................................................ 11

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................. 1

ISSUE1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS APPLIED THE AUTHORITY OF

PINNEL’S CASE CORRECTLY OR NOT?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE

DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN THE CURRENT CASE OR
NOT?

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. V. Verses
3. UOI UNION OF INDIA
4. P Page
7. & And
10. SCR Supreme Court Review
13. SC Supreme court
14. SCC Supreme Court Cases
15. Ie. That is
 LIST OFAUTHORITIES
S.NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. PINNEL’S VS COLE Citations: (1602) 5 Rep 117;

(1601) 77 ER 237

2. Foakes v Beer (1883-1884)

Books referred:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, DR. J.N. PANDEY
2. THE CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF BY AVTAR SINGH
3. CONTRACT 1 BY R.K. BANGIA

STATUTESREFERRED:
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949
2. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Appellant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme
Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution of India:

Article `133 states that –

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in
a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under
article 134—

(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause 1
may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise
provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

ABOUT THE PARTIES –

There is a teacher named Alan Alright who has been interested in finding run down properties and developing
them for sale to get profit. He hired Brian Black, a local builder for restoration and helping his dream of
property development come true.

ALL ABOUT THE CASE –

1. In February 2001 Alan employ Brian, a local builder to help him with property business.
2. Brian informed Alan that the cost of the work will cost arounds 18,00,000 including labours and
materials.
3. Alan accepted Brian quote on the proviso that the building work should be complete by 5 th April
because he was going to do business of rent for 12,000 per month for newly furnished luxury flat.
4. Brian started work in mid- February but unfortunately due to bad weather and one of his men named
Chris who was doing plaster had to go to hospital. he thought that work will not be completed by 5 th
so he informed Alan that he could complete his work if he pay him extra amount to his existing men
for doing overtime and employ a new plasterer.
5. In all Alan would have to raise the price of the contract by 5,00,000. Although he was seeing profit
dwindling he was more concerned about his 1 st tenant to move in & so he agreed.
6. Brain completed his work by 2nd April and send bill of 23,00,000 to Alan. Due to financial difficulties
Alan could afford to pay only 20,00,000.
7. Brian thought he better accept Rs 20,00,000 or he will end up with nothing at all So, he received a
cheque of 20,00,000 from Alan with a picture of Jesus and a thank you.
8. In July 2001, Brian heard that Alan had taken all of his family abroad for three- week holiday on
May,2001.
9. Brian asked Alan for Rs 3,00,000 balance plus interest on date but Alan refused and Brian decided to
sue Alan for his outstanding amount plus interest.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT –

1. Lower court opined that the authority of Pinnel’s Case (1602) is not apt in the current is not applied
to the current case and doctrine of equitable promissory estoppel.

2. High court also favoured the judgement of Lower court.

3. Alen Alright approached the Hon’ble Supreme court against the judgement of Lower court and High
court.
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

ISSUE1–WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS APPLIED THE AUTHORITY OF

PINNEL’S CASE CORRECTLY OR NOT?

ISSUE 2

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN THE CURRENT CASE OR NOT?

ISSUE 3

ISSUE 3 - – WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE PECUNIARYJURISDICTION TO ADJUDGE

THE PRESENT CASE OR NOT?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that the court has applied the substantial
question of law whose matter does not fall under substantial question of law

ISSUE 2

ISSUE 2–WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS APPLIED THE AUTHORITY OF

PINNEL’S CASE CORRECTLY OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that the court has applied the authority
of Pinnel’s case which is incorrect. As per the facts of present case the plantiff has to
pay Rs 3,00,000 plus interest.

ISSUE 3

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN THE CURRENT CASE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that the court has applied the doctrine
of promissory estoppel is incorrect.
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

. ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTABLE OR NOT?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Substantial question of

law (The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the
case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public
importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the
parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is
not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court
or is not free from difficulty or call for discussion of alternative views) matter
does not fall under pecuniary of substantive question of law .

 It does not affect the criteria of general importance.

 There was no certificate provide by High court as per Article 134A because
The High Court under Article 134A, issue a certificate of appeal to the
Supreme Court if it finds that there is a substantial question of law that is
involved. The High Court can issue the certificate for appeal under two
conditions:

 It deems fit on its own accord.

 If an oral application is made by the parties or on their behalf, immediately after
the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence,
determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, whether the
certificate of the nature referred to in Article 132(1), or Article 133(1) or, as the
case may be, of Article 134(1)(c), may be given in respect of that case.
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ISSUE2

ISSUE 2–WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS APPLIED THE

AUTHORITY OF PINNEL’S CASE CORRECTLY OR NOT?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the defendant, Cole owed the
plaintiff, Pinnel the sum of £8 10s. Pinnel sued Cole for recovery of the debt. Cole had,
at Pinnel’s request paid £5 2s 6d one month before the debt was due to be paid and
stated that they had an agreement that this part payment would discharge the entire
debt.

 The defendant argued that the plaintiff had accepted partial payment of the debt as
satisfaction of the whole. However, it was a general rule that payment of a lesser sum
than that which was owed in satisfaction of a debt could not discharge the obligation
to repay the whole amount.

 The court confirmed the general rule that part payment of a debt cannot be satisfaction
for the whole. However, since the payment had been made early this was sufficient to
discharge, he debt.

 Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater sum cannot be any
satisfaction of the whole… but the gift of a horse, hawk, or robe etc. in satisfaction is
good. For it shall be intended that a hawk, horse, or robe, etc. might be more beneficial
to the plaintiff than the money’.

 In the landmark case, Foakes v Beer (1883-1884) it was held that Dr Foakes was liable
to pay the interest. The agreement reached amounted to part payment of a debt and
under the rules in Pinnel’s case this was not good consideration for a promise not to
enforce the full amount due

 Therefore, by paying some money early the defendant had provided the plaintiff with a
further benefit and had not just repaid the money which he already owed.
Consequently, this was good consideration, and the court found for the defendant.
 ISSUE 3

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN THE CURRENT CASE OR NOT?

 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the doctrine of

promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Like all equitable remedies, it
is discretionary, in contrast to the common law absolute right like right to
damages for breach of contract. The doctrine has been variously called
'promissory estoppel', 'equitable estoppel', 'quasi estoppel' and 'new
estoppel'. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though
commonly named 'promissory estoppel’; it is neither in the realm of contract
nor in the realm of estoppel.

 The true principle of promissory estoppel is where one party has by his words
or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is
intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the
future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party
to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other
party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not
be entitled to go back upon it. It is not necessary, in order to attract the
applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel that the promisee acting
in reliance of the promise, should suffer any detriment. The only thing
necessary is that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance of
the promise.
 MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUE SRAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES
CITED, THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDEN THUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:

1. The case is not maintainable.

2. The appellant is liable to pay the remaining amount plus the interest to the
respondent.

AND/ORPASSANYOTHERORDER, DIRECTIONORRELIEFTHATTHISHON‟BLE COURT

MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY ANDGOODCONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, RESPONDENT SHALL, AS DUTY BOUND FOREVER.

Sd/-
THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT