8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 1/24
IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF NAYA XILI
AT NAYA XILI
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 9 AND 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, READ WITH ORDER IV R ULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
AND R ULE 2 OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT R ULES, FRAMED UNDER SECTION 34(1) OF
THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
OS NO. XXX OF 2012
I N THE MATTER OF
SGE Ltd. (Represented by the Company Secretary)........................................(Plaintiff)
V.
Actio McSong...............................................................................................(Defendant)
-M EMORIAL ON B EHALF OF THE D EFENDANT -
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 2/24
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ii
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................. iii
Statement of Facts ..................................................................................................... v
Statement of Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... vi
Issues for Consideration ........................................................................................... vi
Summary of Arguments........................................................................................... vii
Arguments Advanced ................................................................................................ 1
I.
The defendant Actio McSong is not liable for the breach of contract and
consequent damages. ............................................................................................. 1
A. The agreement is not a contract within the meaning of the Contract Act,
1872 .................................................................................................................. 1
B.
The contract between the defendant and the plaintiff stands frustrated. ....... 3
II. The defendant Actio McSong is not liable for the tort of negligence and the
consequent damages. ............................................................................................. 6
A.
There exists no duty of care as the duty arose from the contract but the
contractual obligation is voidable. ...................................................................... 6
B. Arguendo - The duty imposed must be fair, just and reasonable.................. 7
C. Arguendo - Actio took reasonable care not to breach the duty .................... 7
D.
The defendant cannot be held liable for causing public humiliation to the
plaintiff. ............................................................................................................. 8
E. The defendant cannot be held liable for the loss of goodwill caused to the
plaintiff. ........................................................................................................... 10
Prayer ...................................................................................................................... 15
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 3/24
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
21st Century Systems, Inc. v. Perot Systems Government Services, Inc, Record No.
110114, Virginia Supreme Court ......................................................................... 11
Afsar Sheikh v. Suleman Bibi AIR 1976 SC 163 ....................................................... 1
Amir Chand Tota Ram v. Sucheta Kripalani AIR 1961 Punj 383 ............................... 2
Anheuser-Busch v Budejoicky [1984] FSR 413 CA.................................................. 12
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Ex. 781 at 784 ............................... 8
C. Czarnikow Ltd. v. Koufos, [1969] 1 A.C. 350 ...................................................... 10
Caparo, [1990] 2 A.C 643 ......................................................................................... 7
Central National Bank ltd v. United Industrial bank AIR 1954 SC 181 ..................... 1
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. B. C. Srinivasa Shetty, AIR 1981 SC p.
972 ...................................................................................................................... 11
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991 AIR 101 ................ 1
Eacom Controls v. Bailey Controls, AIR1998Delhi365 ............................................. 4
IRC v Muller&Co’sMargerine [1901] AC 217 HL .................................................. 11
Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. Kamal Distillery AIR 1963 SC 1279 .................................. 1
London and Lancashire Insurance v. Binoy Krishna Mitra AIR 1945 Cal 218 .......... 2
Morgan v. Manser [1948] 2 ALL ER 666 ................................................................. 4
Nutrientwater Pty Ltd v Baco Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 2 ............................................... 12
Re Polemis, [1921] 3 K.B. 560 ................................................................................ 10
Robinson v. Davison (1871) LR 6 Ex 269 .................................................................. 4
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur AIR 1954 SC 44 ....................................... 4
Sushila Devi v. Hari SinghAIR 1971 SC 1756 ........................................................... 4
T. V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises ltd and other (2011) 2012, 4 SCC 85 ...... 11
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 4/24
iv
Tai Hing Cotton Mill v. Liu Chong Hing Bank [1986] A.C 80 ................................... 6
Tamplin Steamship v. Anglo- Mexican petroleum(1916) AC 397 ............................... 4
Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, AIR 1998 SC 1400 ............................................ 1
The Wagon Mound, [1961] A.C. 388 ....................................................................... 10
McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All. E.R 1623 ...... 9
Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A.C. 956 ............................................................... 9
Statutes
Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 ......................................................................... 1
Section 14 of the Contract Act, 1872 ......................................................................... 1
Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 ......................................................................... 1
Section 19A of the Contract Act, 1872 ...................................................................... 7
Section 2(h) of the Contract Act, 1872 ....................................................................... 1
Books & Treatises
BRYAN A. GARNER , BLACK ‟S LAW DICTIONARY,(9th ed 2001)................................ 11
POLLOCK AND MULLA, I NDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC R ELIEF ACT, Part 1, 306-376
(LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 13nd ed. 2009). ............................... 2, 3
WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT, 313, (Sweet & Maxwell, South Asian Edition, 18 th
ed., 2010) .............................................................................................................. 9
Articles
McCutcheon, Lynn, E., Lang, Renee., Hourst, James., Conceptualization and
Measurement of Celebrity Worship, British Journal of Psychology, 93, Issue 1, pp.
67-87 February 2002 ........................................................................................... 13
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 5/24
v
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Actio McSong is a world famous actor and singer from Xephilia. Spice Galore
Entertainment Co. Ltd. (SGE) is a renowned company in the field of entertainment
and movies. SGE was organizing the entertainment for the inauguration of Xephilia
Premier League, at the capital city Naya Xili on 15 th May for which Mr. Elmo,
representative of the managers of SGE signed a contract with Actio to perform for
half an hour at the inauguration ceremony and paid him an advance. The contract
between them contained certain restrictive clauses. Actio was angered by these
clauses, yet signed the contract. On 12th May, Actio requested Mr. Elmo to allow him
to record the live event for his personal use, which he refused, resulting in Actio
leaving the place in a fit of rage. It was published in a news daily on 13 th Maythat
prawns and lobsters were contaminated due to poor health standards in local
restaurants causing allergic reactions. Actio threw a party for his friends at a seafood
specialty restaurant Coral Reef. Actio had a medical history of being allergic to
prawns but had eaten small quantities of it uneventfully. Actio filled his plate with
dishes including a certain complimentary dish, which contained fine pieces of prawn.
Soon after consumption, he fell sick and threw up. The doctor said that Actio was
suffering an allergic reaction from the contaminated food and requested him to rest.
Mr. Elmo saw a video taken by the security camera and conveyed its contents to Mr.
McGuire, who tweeted regarding the issue against Actio. SGE sent a notice to Actio
stating that Actio can either perform or face legal action, since the incident may not
have been accidental. Both these events led to messages being spread on the Internet
referring to SGE in bad light. SGE replaced Actio with local star Henry. SGE sued
Actio claiming damages for breach of agreement for performance, for loss of
goodwill, humiliation among peers, clientele and community at large.
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 6/24
vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The defendant most humbly and respectfully submits that this honourable court has
the requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the matter under Sections 9 and 15
read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Rule 2 of the
Bombay High Court Rules, framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
I. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT, ACTIO MCSONG, IS LIABLE FOR A BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND CONSEQUENT DAMAGES?
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 7/24
vii
II. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT, ACTIO MCSONG, IS LIABLE FOR THE TORT OF
NEGLIGENCE AND THE CONSEQUENT DAMAGES?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THE DEFENDANT, ACTIO MCSONG, IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND CONSEQUENT DAMAGES.
The contract is not valid as the defendant‟s consent was taken using undue
influence. The plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 8/24
viii
owing to the facts and circumstances. The terms are extremely unreasonable
and unconscionable owing to the fact that the terms are too broad and the
period of the restrictions is 6 months. The plaintiff used its dominating
position to obtain undue influence over the defendant.
The contract is frustrated as the defendant is physically incapable of
performing the contract. The incapacity cannot be imputed to the default of the
defendant, as there was an actual contamination of seafood beyond his control.
The event of him falling ill was unforeseeable as Coral Reef was a specialty
restaurant, not a local one.The fine pieces of prawn were present in the
complimentary dish, and knowledge of this fact by the defendant cannot be
assumed.
II. THE DEFENDANT ACTIO MCSONG IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
AND THE CONSEQUENT DAMAGES.
The duty of care arose solely from the contractual obligation and the
contractual obligation has been declared void, therefore it is not an
independent liability. Since there is no duty of care, there can be no alleged
breach of such duty. Assuming but not conceding that a duty of care exists,
such a duty must be fair, just and reasonable. The duty imposed is extremely
wide, arbitrary and unconscionable. The defendant took reasonable care not to
breach the duty. He acted as a reasonable man would.
The defendant cannot be held liable for the damage of public humiliation. The
causal link between his act and the consequent damage is broken, as the
plaintiff‟s own act interfered in the chain of events. The plaintiff had other
reasonable options rather than sending a threatening notice to the sick
defendant. The plaintiff‟s own default in disclosing the content of a security
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 9/24
ix
tape to a third party and serving a threatening legal notice resulted in the
consequent criticisms and public humiliation. The damage is too remote as the
defendant could not have anticipated the chain of events that would occur.
The defendant cannot be held liable for loss of goodwill to the plaintiff. Since
goodwill is about the client attracting capability of the firm, this one singular
event cannot be responsible for changing the perception of competence of the
plaintiff in the media entertainment world. The entire event, which occurred,
had no effect on the clientele of the company. The negative perception of the
plaintiff by one niche fan community is inconsequential to the plaintiff‟s
goodwill. Further, the event did not result in any actual economic loss to the
plaintiff, as the ticket amount was non-refundable.
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 10/24
1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. THE DEFENDANT ACTIO MCSONG IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND CONSEQUENT DAMAGES.
The defendant is not liable for the beach of the contract because [A] The agreement is
not a contract within the meaning of The Contract Act, 1872, assuming but not
conceding that the consent is valid, [B] The contract stands frustrated.
A. The agreement is not a contract within the meaning of the Contract Act,
1872
The agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff is not a contract within the
meaning of the Contract Act, 1872 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟), as the
defendant‟s consent has been caused by undue influence.
A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.1 For an agreement to be enforceable
by law, consent between the parties must be free.2 Consent is not free when it has
been actuated by undue influence.3 A contract is induced by undue influence when [i]
one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of another, [ii] when the other
party uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.4
The person
1 Section 2(h) of the Contract Act, 1872; Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
1991 AIR 101; Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, AIR 1998 SC 1400
2 Section 13 of the Act; Central National Bank ltd v. United Industrial bank AIR 1954 SC 181
3 Section 14 of the Act
4 Section 16 of the Act; LadliParshadJaiswal v. Kamal Distillery AIR 1963 SC 1279; Afsar Sheikh v.
SulemanBibiAIR 1976 SC 163
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 11/24
2
influenced is constrained to do against his will that, which, but for the influence, he
would have refused to do if left to exercise his own judgment.5
i .
The plainti ff was in a position to dominate the wil l of the defendant
According to Section 16(3) of the Act, a presumption of undue influence arises when
two factors are proved; firstly that the person was in a position to dominate the will of
another, and that the transaction appears to be unconscionable on the face of it or by
evidence adduced.A dominating position can arise as a result of the circumstances in
which the contract was entered into.6
The plaintiff is one of the most sought after event organizer, and had been tasked with
organizing the opening ceremony of Xephilia premier league. The agreement between
the defendant and the plaintiff is unconscionable on the face of it. Clause 5.1 of the
agreement is unconscionable, not engaging in any sport activities, non-consumption
of alcohol, and the term stating not to engage in any activity, which would risk the
performer or affect performance. These terms are extremely unreasonable and
unconscionable when viewed in light of the fact that, the term of the contract extends
to a period of more than 6 months from the date of the agreement. The opening
ceremony was a gala event, where many stars performed and even the president of
Xephilia was going to attend the ceremony. The defendant himself was taken by the
enormity of the event. These circumstances empowered the plaintiff to a position such
as to dominate the will of the defendant. Both these factors are satisfied in the present
matter. Hence, a presumption of undue influence is adduced7.
5 Amir Chand Tota Ram v. SuchetaKripalani AIR 1961 Punj 383
6 London and Lancashire Insurance v. Binoy Krishna Mitra AIR 1945 Cal 218; POLLOCK AND MULLA,I NDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC R ELIEF ACT, Part 1, 476 (LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur,
13nd
ed. 2009).
7 Id.
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 12/24
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 13/24
4
words impracticable by some cause for which neither was responsible”, was later
affirmed by the Delhi High Court10 Apex Court11.
The defendant had fallen sick after being served contaminated food and had been
admitted to a star county hospital and in the press conference held by doctors was
asked to rest for the entire week. 12 Also, it was stated and there was huge news
coverage of the fact that the defendant because of his illness would be disabled from
performing in the event.
This is further substantiated with two reasons. [i] The incapacity was without the
default of the defendant. [ii] The event was not foreseeable.
i . The incapacity was without default of the defendant
The incapacity cannot be imputed to the defendant, there was no default from his side,
which can link to the illness which led to incapacity, and this has to be construed from
the entire situation and variables at play.
The defendant fell sick and was be hospitalized because of the contamination of the
food that he was served, the contamination, if, attributed to poor hygiene standards of
the restaurant, leads to the inference that the defendant had no control over this
possibility.
The defendant served himself the dish „Dry Seafood Special‟ which was
complementary, and it was one among other dishes that he served to himself, one of
the ingredients was fine pieces of prawns, which brings into question, whether
knowledge about the pawns can be imputed to the defendant. Also, what exactly did
10 Eacom Controls v. Bailey Controls, AIR1998Delhi365
11SatyabrataGhose v. MugneeramBangur AIR 1954 SC 44, Sushila Devi v. HariSinghAIR 1971 SC
1756
12 Proposition, para 10
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 14/24
5
the defendant consume is not known. The knowledge of the presence of prawns to the
defendant cannot be presumed.
i i .
The event was not f oreseeable
The event of contamination was not foreseeable, and it would be unreasonable to
impute knowledge of the same to the defendant. An analysis of the facts proves this
point. The article about the contamination due to poor hygiene standards was posted
in the magazine by „Morning Espresso‟ and not the news daily, though the magazine
was placed in every room, there were other newspapers and magazines present, it
cannot reasonably be presumed that the defendant read all of the material kept in his
room. A reasonable standard would be to read the important news, in the news dailies,
and not all the articles in all the magazines present in his room. Assuming but not
conceding to the fact, that he had read the article, still a reasonable assumption of
poor hygiene standards would not arise, the article refers to local restaurants, while
„Coral reef‟ was a seafood specialty restaurant, one frequented by stars of showbiz.13
A comparison cannot be drawn between both restaurants, the article in any sense
cannot be constructed to mean and include „Coral Reef‟ within the meaning of the
article. Poor hygiene standards cannot be expected from Coral Reef. Hence, the
happening of the event was not foreseeable. Thus the contract stands frustrated.
13 Proposition, Para 7
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 15/24
6
II. THE DEFENDANT ACTIO MCSONG IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TORT OF
NEGLIGENCE AND THE CONSEQUENT DAMAGES.
The defendant Actio McSong is not liable for the tort of negligence and the
consequent damages as: [A] There exists no duty of care as the duty arose from the
contract but the contractual obligation is voidable. [B] Arguendo – The duty imposed
must be fair, just and reasonable. [C] Arguendo – The defendant took reasonable care
not to breach this duty. [D] The defendant cannot be held liable for causing public
humiliation to the plaintiff. [E] The defendant cannot be held liable for loss of
goodwill to the plaintiff.
A. There exists no duty of care as the duty arose from the contract but the
contractual obligation is voidable.
Actio is not liable for the tort of negligence because the duty of care whose breach has
been alleged by SGE Ltd. arises from the contract and is not an independent
liability.14
When the consent to the contract had been induced by undue influence, it
would be highly unreasonable and unjust to impose a liability in tort which arises
from contractual terms of which Actio seeks to not be bound by.
The transaction on the face of it seems unconscionable and clause 5.1 has been
especially claimed as to be highly unreasonable, then it would not be fair just and
reasonable to import a duty of care in this regard as to impose a tortuous duty which
would have the same effect as though enforcing terms of the contract when the
14Tai Hing Cotton Mill v. Liu Chong Hing Bank [1986] A.C 80
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 16/24
7
contract should be voidable for consent is caused by undue influence 15. Since there is
no duty of care owed by Actio with regard to his conduct, he can commit no breach of
it. Therefore, the Act of Actio does not fall within the meaning of Negligence.
B. Arguendo - The duty imposed must be fair, just and reasonable.
Assuming but not conceding that a duty exists, the duty imposed should be fair just
and reasonable. Even if there is the requisite degree of proximity, a duty may be
denied if in the court‟s view imposition of liability is not fair, just and reasonable.16
If we look at the duty of the plaintiff to the defendant, it is clear that such a duty is not
fair just and reasonable. To expect the plaintiff to not eat out at any place for a period
of 6 months, except at the place of stay provided by the defendant is extremely unjust,
unfair and unreasonable. The duty imposed is highly arbitrary and is biased in favour
of the defendant.
C. Arguendo - Actio took reasonable care not to breach the duty
Assuming but conceding that Actio owed SGE Ltd. a duty of care, it is enough to
prove that there was no breach of duty if the plaintiff took reasonable care to avoid
any damage.17 The term reasonable care is derived from what a reasonable man would
or would not do.
In the present case, Actio took reasonable care not to cause the damage of public
humiliation and loss of goodwill to SGE Ltd. In the restaurant, though it was a
seafood specialty restaurant, it is not mentioned specifically that Actio ordered a dish,
which contained prawn, which he was allergic to. The dish, which contained fine
15 Section 19A of the Act
16Caparo, [1990] 2 A.C 643
17 Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Ex. 781 at 784
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 17/24
8
pieces of prawn, was a complimentary dish served by the restaurant. 18 It is also
mentioned that Actio piled his plate with dishes and it is not clear what exact caused
the reaction. In such a circumstance of ambiguity, it is unreasonable and impossible to
assume that Actio did not take the care of a reasonable man.
Secondly, it was stated in the news daily that the seafood in local restaurants was
prone to contamination. Even if Actio did come across this article, it didn‟t refer to
specialty restaurants such as Coral Reef, but local restaurants. In this way, Actio still
took reasonable care against seafood contamination by going to a specialty restaurant
and not any local restaurant.
The other ingredients for the tort of negligence have been elaborated upon
individually within the explanation of damages.
D. The defendant cannot be held liable for causing public humiliation to the
plaintiff.
The defendant cannot be held liable for causing public humiliation as: [i] Public
humiliation was not caused by Actio‟s alleged negligence. [ii] The damage is too
remote.
i . Public humiliation was not caused by Actio’s alleged negligence.
The tortious damage alleged is that of public humiliation and this damage cannot be
attributed to Actio‟s negligent act. There can exist multiple causes for a particular
damage.19
The but-for test cannot be simply applied here. The causal link between the
negligent action and the damage is broken, as there exists a nova
18 Proposition, Para 8
19WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT, 313, (Sweet & Maxwell, South Asian Edition, 18
th ed., 2010)
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 18/24
9
causainterveniens.20It was held by the House of Lords that the plaintiff‟s action can
be attributed to nova causaintervenienseven if it was foreseeable, but unreasonable.21
If he had no reasonable alternative to acting as he did, it would not have broken the
chain of causation.22 The damage caused was due to SGE Ltd.‟s own acts, therefore,
there was an intervening act of the claimant.
Mr. Elmo disclosed the details of the security camera tape to Mr. McGuire who in
turn posted it on a social networking site. There was widespread commenting for and
against this issue based on Mr. McGuire‟s initial post.23 SGE Ltd. sent Actio a notice
stating that non-performance would provoke legal action, especially as they doubted
that the incident might not have been accidental.24
Fans criticized SGE Ltd. on the
basis of the notice sent to Actio by SGE Ltd Itself.25
The legal notice served by SGE is an independent act. If not for the notice, there
would have been no resultant public humiliation. SGE was unreasonable. There were
more reasonable options that SGE could have resorted to, such as not threatening
Actio with legal action and claiming his act was not accidental, as it was clear that
Actio was genuinely ill and through no fault of his own.
It is evident that there were many events between the negligent act and the damage.
The negligent act did not directly cause the damage of public humiliation. Acts of
SGE Ltd. intervened and caused the damage. Therefore, Actio cannot be held for the
damage allegedly caused by him.
20Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A.C. 956
21 McKew v. Holland &Hannen&Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All. E.R 1623
22WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT, 361, (Sweet & Maxwell, South Asian Edition, 18
th ed., 2010)
23Proposition, Para 13.
24 Proposition, Para 14
25 Proposition, Para 15
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 19/24
10
i i . The damage is too remote
Earlier, in the case of Re Polemis,26 it was held that a person is liable for the all the
direct consequences of his act. This was overruled in the Wagon Mound,where it was
stated that the defendant could be held liable for only those damages that a reasonable
man can foresee to arise from his actions. 27 The defendant should be able to
reasonably foresee the chain of actions which can occur and the consequent damage,
if he cannot, then he cannot be held be liable for the damage.28
In the present argument, we have assumed but not conceded that Actio disabled
himself from performance. The events, which occurred,were not foreseeable, since
SGE itself served a notice, which was an intervening act, and criticisms against it
went viral on the internet. There is no causal relationship between the negligent act
and the consequent damage. The acts of SGE Ltd. and the resultant reaction of a third
party cannot be imputed to Actio and he cannot be held liable for public humiliation
allegedly caused to SGE Ltd.
E. The defendant cannot be held liable for the loss of goodwill caused to the
plaintiff.
Goodwill has been defined as “A business's reputation, patronage, and other
intangible assets that are considered when appraising the business, esp. for purchase;
the ability to earn income in excess of the income that would be expected from the
business viewed as a mere collection ofassets.”29 Thus Goodwill is the additional
value accruing to the business functions of a business based on its reputation among
26 Re Polemis, [1921] 3 K.B. 560
27The Wagon Mound, [1961] A.C. 388
28C. Czarnikow Ltd. v. Koufos, [1969] 1 A.C. 350
29 BRYAN A. GARNER , BLACK ‟S LAW DICTIONARY, 763 (9
th ed. 2001)
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 20/24
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 21/24
12
i . The actions of the defendant were incapable of causing harm to the business
reputation of the company
In the present case, the actions of the defendant were incapable of causing harm to the
business reputation. When considering the goodwill of the firm, it is important to note
that it is not merely the reputation of the business, but rather the effective client
attracting capability of the firm35
. Business reputation of a firm is characteristically
identical to the reputation of a person as an entity36
. However it alone doesn‟t
substantially decide the business generating capability. In this case, the entire episode
of events did nothing to affect the perception of competence of the plaintiffs in the
media entertainment world.
i i . The action had no eff ect on the clientele of the business.
The actions of the defendant had no effect on the clientele of the business. The entire
sequence of events, which took place didn‟t decrease the professional competence of
the company, SGE Ltd. The unfortunate health complication affecting the defendant
was out in the open for public perusal. It, in no way attributed any specific attribution
of performance to SGE Ltd in a way as to diminish the credibility of the plaintiffs.
Rather, the entire episode actually reaffirmed the professional competency of the
plaintiffs by demonstrating their capability to respond to unforeseen contingencies of
vast magnitude. So there were no negative attributions of any sort attributed to the
company except some very expressive fans of Actio. The only negative evaluation of
the defendant arising from the entire sequence of events is limited to the niche group
within the fan base of Actio who are active users of his fan website. So, the
proportion of people having a negative perception of SGE is a minority within a
35 Anheuser-Busch v Budejoicky [1984] FSR 413 CA
36Ibid
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 22/24
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 23/24
14
only at the behaviour of the company with Actio and had nothing to do with the
competence of the company to ensure opportunities for stars in the entertainment
business.38
So the economic loss was not a factor. Tickets for the ceremony were
booked prior to the events surrounding the frustration of the contract. Thus, the
presence or absence of the defendant as a performer during the actual date of the
performance did little to affect the revenues. This is reaffirmed in the clause defined
by the plaintiffs for the ticket buyers, which expressly rejected any refund claims.39
38Proposition Point No. 15
39Clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tickets.
8/15/2019 Moot Memorial example
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/moot-memorial-example 24/24
PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited it is most humbly prayed before this Honorable Court that it may be
pleased to: -
Dismiss the suit with costs.
And pass any such order which the Honorable Court may deem fit in the eyes of
equity, justice and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully, submitted.
Date: 15th May 2012 S/d:
Place: Naya Xili (Counsel for the Defendant)