“4. The claimant in para 5 of the claim statement pleaded that when he started looking out for a title sponsor to invest for the show to be held in Chennai, the respondent has promised the claimant that he will buy the show and committed by his letter dated 11.07.2019, a consideration of Rs.4.25 crores which was later on reduced by the respondent by his letter dated 24.07.2019 to Rs.4 crores plus taxes. However, it is seen from the statement of defence that the respondent had denied that he agreed to bring a title sponsor and added that the alleged letter of sponsorship was brought about under duress and coercion. The Tribunal is not going into that question at this stage whether the plea of duress and coercion is proved or not, suffice it to say that those communications relied upon by the claimant in this context clearly show that it is a “fall-out” of Clause 8 of the contract, i.e., instead of the claimant looking out for an event sponsor, the respondent had undertaken that responsibility by paying a consideration as promised by him. Ex.C.2 is the agreement and Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.9 are not totally extraneous to the contractual terms incorporated in Ex.C.2. In fact, in Ex.C.4 letter dated 24.07.2019, there is a reference to the proposal given by the claimant for a live concert show to be held on 10.08.2019 at YMCA grounds. It is the claimant's case that based on that assurance, he did whatever he could do under the agreement dated 29.05.2019 to take the proposed live show on 10.08.2019 to its logical end. It is his case that he had done so on the belief and the representation made by the respondent that he will pay the promised amount. Except pleading that the letter of assurance referred to above is the result of duress and coercion brought about by the claimant, the respondent had not proved that fact in any manner. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the claimant had fixed his own event sponsor and with his association
