Hi everyone!
I'm a first year law student and I would be highly obliged if you could help me with my moot problem! I am the APPELLANT.
The facts are as follows:
Person A is a world-renowned doctor who got his degree in New Delhi in 1985. He served on the personal medical team of the President and was even honoured with the Bharat Ratna. He left India to teach and research in a prestigious university in the field of medicine but he came back in 2008 to India to serve the poor.
He went on to set up a highly successful group of hospitals and in 2014, A decided to build the largest medical care facility for underprivileged patients. He diverted all his energy to this project and during the final stages of completion, he personally looked into the procurment of medical equipment.
After much research and enquiry, he settled on a company based in Chandigarh, due to its reputation in the industry, which was owned by person B. The company's website displayed all the specifications of the sophisticated machinery it offered and ways to place the order for the same. The landing page of the website prominently reflected that delivery will be completed within 30 days of placing the order.
On 1st August, A wrote a mail to B, placing the order for the medicines in scrupulous detail. He immediately received a call from the company for confirming certain specifications of the equipments asked for which he gave after 3 days.
The inaugaration of the facility was to be held on 4th September and was to be inaugarated by the President of India and other high dignitaries. However, no word was received from the company regarding the delivery of goods and A called the company about the delay even when there was a 30 day policy. B replied that there has been a delay in the procurment of the equipments since they're made in Germany and it would only be delivered on 7th September.
The inaugaration had to be called off and it resulted in embarrassment and hige loss of reputation of person A. On 7th September, the machinery was sought to be delivered by B's company but it was refused by A, who moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi seeking damages from the company as well as from B as he had suffered a huge loss of reputation.
The company challenged the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. They also claimed specific performance of the contract against A as sophisticated machinery had been imported by them specifically on demand of A would have no buyers owing to high cost.
The company claimed that they had a 30 day guarantee but it was subject to delays in procurement, which was written in the Terms and Conditions section of the website. A replied that timely delivery was of paramount importance to the contract and as it was not adhered to, he had a right to repudiate the contract.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has listed the matter pending final disposal to hear inter alia the issues of jurisdiction, damages and specific relief.