Team code:

Intra College Moot Court Competition, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF METROVILLE

Evergreen Contactors Ltd.

Appellant

Vs.

Global Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Upon Submission to The Hon’ble High-Court Judge

Memorandum On Behalf of Appellant

 Table of Contents

I. List of Abbreviations
II. Index of Authorities
III. Statement of Jurisdiction
IV. Statement of Facts
V. Issues Raised
VI. Summary of Arguments
VII. Arguments Advanced
 Was the government-imposed lockdown a valid force majeure event under the contract
between Evergreen and Global Tech?
 Did Evergreen properly invoke the force majeure clause, and were the subsequent delays
after the lockdown reasonable and covered under the force majeure clause?
 Whether Evergreen was obligated to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event, and
if so, whether Evergreen took sufficient steps to do so?
 Is Global Tech entitled to terminate the contract and claim liquidated damages for the
delay beyond the agreed extension deadline?
VIII. Prayer

2
List of Abbreviations

3
 Index of Authorities

 Table Of Cases
 Books
 Websites
 Statutes

4
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Appellant has approached the honorable high court of Metroville under Art.2271 and
Section 962

Article 227 - Power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-

“Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.

The High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make
and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in
which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts.”

The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the
sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys,
advocates and pleaders practicing therein. Provided that any rules
made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause
(3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time
being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the
Governance.

Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court

powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by
or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-

“Appeal from original decree.

1
The Constitution of India, 1949
2
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973

5
(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code
or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie
from every decree passed by any Court exercising original
jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the
decisions of such Court.

(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.

(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the
consent of parties.

1[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree

in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when
the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not
exceed 2 [ten thousand rupees.]] the council submits that the present
appeal is maintainable in the hon’ble high court of Metroville.”

6
 Statement of Facts

1. By the present Appeal, the appellant, namely Evergreen Contractors Ltd.,

(hereinafter referred to as ‘The appellant’ for sake of brevity) is a construction
company based in Metroville, specializing in large-scale commercial projects. Global
Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ((hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" for sake of
brevity) is a technology firm engaged in developing cutting-edge data centers across
the country.
2. On January 15, 2023, The appellant and Respondent entered into a contract wherein
The appellant agreed to construct a state-of-the-art data center for Respondent in
Metroville.
(a) The contract was valued at $50 million, with a project completion deadline set
for December 31, 2023.
(b) The contract contained a detailed force majeure clause, specifying that parties
would not be liable for delays caused by events beyond their control,
including natural disasters, war, terrorism, government actions, and
pandemics.
3. In April 2023, a viral outbreak in Metroville led to a government-imposed lockdown
from April 10 to August 15, 2023, halting all non-essential activities, including
construction. The appellant immediately notified Respondent, claiming the lockdown
was a force majeure event under the contract, causing delays.
4. After the lockdown ended in mid-August, the appellant faced supply chain
disruptions, labor shortages, and financial challenges. Citing the ongoing impact
of the pandemic as a force majeure event, they requested an extension until April 30,
2024. Respondent agreed to extend the deadline only until February 28, 2024,
refusing further extensions, arguing that The appellant should have mitigated delays
after the lockdown.
5. By February 2024, The appellant had completed only 70% of the project. On March
1, 2024, Respondent terminated the contract due to missed deadlines and demanded
$5 million in liquidated damages for breach of contract. The appellant refused,

7
 arguing that the delays were caused by the force majeure event, sparking a legal
dispute.
6. The appellant argues that the government lockdown qualified as a force majeure
event, halting construction and triggering the contract’s force majeure clause. Despite
this, Respondent maintains that The appellant failed to mitigate delays once the
lockdown ended.
7. Respondent contends that the extension granted was reasonable, and The appellant's
inability to complete the project by the agreed deadline of February 28, 2024,
constitutes breach of contract. They seek to enforce the $5 million in liquidated
damages, asserting that the delays were no longer excusable under the force majeure
clause after the lockdown was lifted.

8. Respondent acknowledged the lockdown as a force majeure event and which is why
they extended the deadline ,but now they are claiming the following

(a) They claim The appellant failed to mitigate delays and did not take reasonable
steps to expedite the project.
(b) Respondent asserts that the February 28, 2024, extension was sufficient to
recover, and get the work done even though they were well aware about the
labour ,financial challenges that were faced by people all over the world
(c) They argue that The appellant’s financial and supply chain issues were
foreseeable risks and should have been managed independently of the force
majeure clause.
(d) Respondent seeks to enforce the contract’s termination and the associated
liquidated damages.
9. Respondent seeks enforcement of the $5 million liquidated damages clause, arguing
it was a reasonable pre-agreed estimate of the financial losses caused by The
appellant's delays. They claim The appellant's failure to complete the project on time
resulted in significant harm, including lost revenue from the delayed data center
operation and additional costs for hiring a new contractor.

8
10. Respondent seeks an order compelling The appellant to pay the liquidated damages as
specified in the contract.
11. The District Court of Metroville ruled in favor of Respondent Solutions, rejecting
The Appellant Contractors' claim that the entire delay was due to a force majeure
event.
(a) While the court recognized the initial government lockdown (April 10 to
August 15, 2023) as force majeure
(b) it found The appellant failed to prove ongoing delays were caused by the
event. The court upheld the liquidated damages clause.
(c) Ordering The appellant to pay $5 million for missing the extended deadline
of February 28, 2024.
12. The appellant's appeal to the High Court argues the court misinterpreted the force
majeure clause and challenges the liquidated damages enforcement.

9
 Issues Raised

1. Was the government-imposed lockdown a valid force majeure event under the contract
between Evergreen and Global Tech?

2. Did Evergreen properly invoke the force majeure clause, and were the subsequent delays
after the lockdown reasonable and covered under the force majeure clause?

3. Whether Evergreen was obligated to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event, and
if so, whether Evergreen took sufficient steps to do so?

4. Is Global Tech entitled to terminate the contract and claim liquidated damages for the
delay beyond the agreed extension deadline?

5.

10
 Summary of Arguments

1. Was the government-imposed lockdown a valid force majeure event under the
contract between Evergreen and Global Tech?

2. Did Evergreen properly invoke the force majeure clause, and were the subsequent
delays after the lockdown reasonable and covered under the force majeure clause?

3. Whether Evergreen was obligated to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event,
and if so, whether Evergreen took sufficient steps to do so?

4. Is Global Tech entitled to terminate the contract and claim liquidated damages for
the delay beyond the agreed extension deadline?

5.

11
 Arguments Advanced

1. Was the government-imposed lockdown a valid force majeure event under the
contract between Evergreen and Global Tech?

A.1 Force majeure means “greater force” and is related to an act of God, an event for which
no party can be held accountable. In contract law, force majeure is a common clause in
contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an
extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war,
strike, riot, crime, epidemic, or sudden legal change prevents one or both parties from
fulfilling their obligations under the contract.
A.2 In April 2023 there was an outbreak of a severe viral disease due to which the
government imposed a strict lockdown, halting all non-essential activities, including
construction. The contract clearly contains a specific force majeure clause outlining
events that would excuse performance.
A.3 The Force majeure clause in the contract specified that the parties would not be held
liable for the delays cause by the events beyond their control, including natural disaster,
war, terrorism, government actions and pandemics.
A.4 Your Lordships, strict lockdown and outbreak of a severe novel viral disease were the
events that were beyond the control of the parties which corresponds to government
actions and pandemics.
A.5 Your lordship, it is accertain that the government-imposed lockdown is a valid force
majure event as it was clearly mentioned in the contract that either of the parties won’t be
liable for the delay in the construction for the state art center.

Section32. Enforcement of contracts contingent on an event

happening.—
“Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain
future event happens, cannot be enforced by law unless and until that
event has happened. If the event becomes impossible, such contracts
become void”

12
A.6 If by chance any events takes place which cannot be controlled by the appellant which
was also in detailed mentioned were “government actions and pandemics” the appellant
wont be liable for any delays and damages and its clear that these are force majeure
events and were written in the contract.
A.7 The appellant had to halt all their activities due to the government-imposed lockdown
and there was a delay in the construction because of the outbreak of the disease and its
after effects.
A.8: The government-imposed lockdown directly prevented Evergreen from performing its
contractual obligations. This is a clear case of performance being prevented by an
external event. The lockdown was a direct government action, making it a clear example
of an event beyond the parties' control.
A.9While the specific outbreak of the viral disease might not have been foreseeable, the
possibility of pandemics and government-imposed restrictions to contain them is a
foreseeable risk. The force majeure clause is intended to cover such unforeseen events.

A.10 So yes in the contract evergreen invoked the force majeure event under the contract
properly as it was mentioned in the contract properly.

13
2. Did Evergreen properly invoke the force majeure clause, and were the subsequent
delays after the lockdown reasonable and covered under the force majeure clause?

B.1 ;;Your Lordships, the government-imposed lockdown was undoubtedly a valid force
majeure event as per the contract's clause.
B.2Counsel humbly submits that from the very start, Appellant has acted in good faith, from
initial period where all construction activity progressed smoothly to seeking extensions
and making every possible effort to mitigate the impact, including sourcing materials
from alternative suppliers and hiring additional labor at higher cost.
B.3The aftereffects of a lockdown can potentially fall under a force majeure clause, force
majeure clauses specifically include pandemics, government-imposed lockdowns, or
public health emergencies as qualifying events. If these are listed, then the aftereffects
(such as ongoing restrictions, supply chain disruptions, or labor shortages) are also
covered under.
B.4The event (in this case, the lockdown) must be unforeseeable at the time the contract was
signed. If the contract was signed before the pandemic or lockdown was foreseeable, the
aftereffects might be covered. The aftereffects of a lockdown to fall under force majeure,
they must directly prevent or make it impossible to fulfill contractual obligations.
B.5 The lockdown the after-math was also very heavy for the company as to for them to
manage the disruptions after the pandemic which were the financial difficulties faced by
them after the hard battle after the pandemic or the supply chain and labour shortages are
not something which a company can look after within such a short period of time
B.6the pandemic made the performance of the contract impossible or frustrated its
commercial purpose. This could be based on factors such as the unavailability of essential
materials, the inability to secure skilled labor, or the significant increase in costs.
B.7 For the appellant to make workers comfortable to rehabilitate them as after the pandemic
everyone was scared for their well-being for them to get workers for them to increase
workers efficiency would be hard after the pandemic its out of the companies hand to
find workers and train them accordingly on such short notice is out of their hand not
something they can control as everything being shut down due to pandemic theres
nothing much one can do so it comes under the force majeure.

14
B.8 Another thing that the company cannot control are the supply chain shortage in such a
short period of time as its not in their hand whether how the distributors will supply
goods at what speed whether hes able to cope with the pandemic as well its not in their
hand and it comes under the under effects of the pandemic and the lockdown making it a
force majeure event.
B.9Henceforth your lordship the government-imposed lockdown a valid force majeure event
under the contract between Evergreen and Global Tech as firstly it was written under the
clause of force majeure that the government actions and pandemics come under it in the
contract and so do the after effects come under it.

15
3. Whether Evergreen was obligated to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event,
and if so, whether Evergreen took sufficient steps to do so?
C.1 Your lordship the appellant acknowledges its duty to mitigate the effects of the
force majeure event. The company took reasonable and proactive steps to
minimize the delays, including sourcing materials from alternative suppliers and
hiring additional labor despite higher costs. However, the exceptional nature of
the pandemic meant that complete mitigation was impossible.
C.2 Evergreen made efforts to procure materials from alternative suppliers once the
regular supply chains were disrupted. However, the global nature of the pandemic
meant that alternative suppliers were also affected, and delays were unavoidable.
C.3Evergreen hired additional labor at higher wages to accelerate the project.
However, the labor shortage was severe, and even the additional workforce could
not fully compensate for the lost time. This demonstrates Evergreen’s attempt to
act in good faith and its commitment to mitigate the delays.
C.4 Evergreen adjusted its project timelines and rescheduled work based on the
availability of materials and labor. However, the continued impact of the
pandemic created unpredictable disruptions, preventing a rapid recovery
C.5 Your lordship Even after lockdowns were lifted, the construction industry faced
unprecedented delays in securing materials due to continued factory shutdowns,
shipping delays, and port backlogs. Evergreen could not have reasonably foreseen
that these issues would continue well into the next year making it difficult for
them to procure essential materials on time.
C.6The construction market was facing global shortages, with delays for key
materials like steel, concrete, and electronics. The global nature of the disruption
meant that even alternative suppliers were struggling, which was beyond
Evergreen’s control. Therefore, the difficulties in sourcing were not due to any
negligence on Evergreen's part.
C.7Absolute mitigation is rarely possible during an event of this magnitude, and
Evergreen made a concerted effort to minimize delays despite continued
challenges.

16
 C.8Evergreen had to prioritize worker health and safety in line with government
regulations, which imposed restrictions on site capacity, reducing the efficiency of
labor. These regulations were beyond Evergreen's control, yet they complied in
good faith, demonstrating a commitment to safety while trying to maintain
progress.
C.9 By granting an extension to February 28, 2024, Global Tech implicitly
acknowledged that the pandemic had a significant and continuing impact.
Evergreen’s request for an additional extension should be viewed as a reasonable
reaction to continued challenges, rather than a failure to manage the project
efficiently.
C.10 Global Tech’s decision to terminate the contract on March 1, 2024, following
Evergreen’s inability to meet the extended deadline, was premature. The decision
ignored the continuing difficulties and should be viewed as unjust given
Evergreen’s consistent mitigation efforts. Global Tech's refusal to grant the
requested extension to April 30, 2024, was unreasonable given the ongoing global
pandemic and its direct effect on Evergreen's ability to perform.
C.11 by refusing to extend the deadline beyond February 28, 2024, Global Tech
failed to appreciate that the effects of the pandemic were still materially affecting
Evergreen’s ability to complete the project. This refusal disregarded the
reasonable efforts Evergreen made and put undue pressure on them under
extraordinary circumstances.
C.12 Evergreen Contractors Ltd. took multiple reasonable steps to mitigate the impact
of the pandemic. These steps included sourcing alternative suppliers, hiring
additional labor at higher costs, complying with government health and safety
protocols, and seeking extensions in good faith. The unprecedented nature of the
global pandemic continued to affect the supply chain and labor availability even
after the government lockdown ended, making it unreasonable to expect that
Evergreen could fully mitigate the delays by February 2024. Given the
extraordinary circumstances and Evergreen’s proactive efforts, they fulfilled their
obligation to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event to the best of their
ability.

17
4. Is Global Tech entitled to terminate the contract and claim liquidated damages for
the delay beyond the agreed extension deadline?

D.1 Your lordship, the clause specifies that force majeure events can include pandemics, and
Evergreen did notify Global Tech of the delays in a timely manner. The force majeure
event did not automatically end with the lifting of government restrictions; its ongoing
effects hindered Evergreen’s ability to perform as expected, which was beyond their
control.
D.2global Tech initially agreed to an extension until February 28, 2024, but refused to grant
additional time. Given the extraordinary circumstances, this refusal was unreasonable.
Evergreen needed more time to recover from the pandemic’s broader, long-term
disruptions, which were beyond its control. The refusal to extend the deadline further,
particularly for a project of this scale and complexity, was arbitrary and unreasonable.
D.3Evergreen had already completed 70% of the project by February 2024, despite facing
significant challenges due to the pandemic. Given the extraordinary circumstances and
the fact that the pandemic’s aftereffects were ongoing, Global Tech’s termination of the
contract on March 1, 2024, was premature. Evergreen requested a reasonable extension
of only two more months (until April 30, 2024), and Global Tech’s refusal to grant this
extension was unreasonable and shows bad faith in terminating the contract.
D.4Contracts require parties to cooperate and act in good faith. Global Tech's refusal to grant
further extensions in the face of a continuing force majeure event, coupled with its
termination of the contract, amounted to a breach of its duty to cooperate with Evergreen
to resolve the delays in a fair manner
D.5 The force majeure clause should apply beyond the lockdown due to the continuing,
unforeseeable disruptions caused by the pandemic.Evergreen acted in good faith by
requesting reasonable extensions and actively mitigating delays.Global Tech's refusal to
grant an additional two-month extension and its subsequent termination of the contract
were unreasonable.The imposition of liquidated damages for delays caused by an
uncontrollable event like the pandemic is unfair and should not apply in this case.
D.6Union Of India vs M/S Om Construction Co. on 2 July, 2019

18
D.7in order to ask liquidated damages the court must ascertain
that the delays were solely the contractor is fault ,The
arbitration award addressed several claims from the
Contractor against the Union of India. Claim No. 8 for Rs.
12,00,000 due to price escalation was partially upheld with
Rs. 9,00,000 awarded, as delays were attributed to both
parties. However, Claim No. 9 for Rs. 15,00,000 in lost
profits was denied because the Contractor did not establish
that the delays were solely the Union’s fault. Interest on the
total principal amount of Rs. 20,53,349.23 was awarded at
9% per annum from the arbitration commencement until
payment. The court emphasized the need for proper
evidence to substantiate claims, leading to modifications in
the award and the dismissal of overlapping claims
D.8

19
Prayer

20