Skeleton Argument & Bundle of Authority

This document is a skeleton argument and bundle of authority for a civil division court case. It includes grounds of appeal, submissions, and bundle of authorities for both the appellant and respondent. The document cites various cases and precedents related to contract law. The subject is law and the document type is a skeleton argument and bundle of authority.

Running head: SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
Skeleton Argument & Bundle of Authority
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN
Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
GROUND 1:
Ground of appeal:
1. The Court of First Instance erred in applying the principles established in the case of
Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349 and concluding that the parties to the
contract never had the intention to create a valid contract and being bound by the
terms of the same.
Submissions:
2. The principles established in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
[1892] EWCA Civ 1 states that any offer that has been made to public is considered to
be a unilateral offer. This kind of offer can be accepted by the another person by
fulfilling the conditions.
3. It has been established in the case of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 that the
terms of the offer needs to be clear, unambiguous and definite to achieve the status of
a valid offer and create a contract on being accepted.

2SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
4. It has been established in case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132, that acceptance,
which has been made in accordance with the mode prescribed in the offer is a valid
acceptance and the same can form a valid contract.
5. It has been made evident by the principles established in the case of Rose & Frank
Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 261, any valid offer which has been
validly accepted and both the parties formed an agreement with the intention to form a
relationship enforceable in the eyes of law is said be a formation of a valid contract.
Bundle of Authorities:
Primary Legislation:
Law of Contract
Precedents:
Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
Rose & Frank Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 261,
GROUND 2:
Ground of appeal:
1. The Court of First Instance erred in applying the principles established in the case of
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3 and concluding that
the postal rue was never applicable in the case.
Submissions:
2. It has been established in the case of Stevenson, Jaques, & Co v McLean [1880] 5
QBD 346, that an acceptance is considered be validly communicated as soon as the
same has been posted by the promise.

3SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
3. It has been established in the case of The Household Fire and Carriage Accident
Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1878–79) LR 4 Ex D 216 that postal rule is
only applicable to acceptance.
4. It has been established in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344, the
acceptance needs to be posted by the offeree to be considered as valid. The reaching
of the communication to the offeror is irrelevant.
Bundle of Authorities:
Primary Legislation:
Law of Contract
Precedents:
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3
Stevenson, Jaques, & Co v McLean [1880] 5 QBD 346
The Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1878–79)
LR 4 Ex D 216
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344
The Appellant submit that the appeal be granted.
Leading Counsel Junior Counsel

4SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN
Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
GROUND 1:
Ground of appeal:
1. The Court of First Instance was correct in applying the principles established in the
case of Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349 and concluding that the parties to
the contract never had the intention to create a valid contract and being bound by the
terms of the same.
Submissions:
2. The principles established in the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204,
an advertisement in the newspaper or a poster depicts an invitation to treat and it does
not constitute an offer.
3. It has been established in the case of Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR8QB 286 that an
invitation to treat is an expression of the willingness to negotiate a deal to form a
contract and not an offer in itself.
4. It has been established in case of Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, an invitation to sell
via advertisement does not compel a person to effect the sale. He will always have the

5SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
option refuse to sale the object he has advertised for on being approached by a person
willing to buy the same.
5. It has been made evident by the principles established in the case of Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, that
a mere display of an item to be sold will not be considered as an offer, which can be
accepted to form a contract to sell. It is rather an invitation that requires the parties to
negotiate a deal for the purpose of forming a contract.
Bundle of Authorities:
Primary Legislation:
Law of Contract
Precedents:
Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204
Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR8QB 286
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401
GROUND 2:
Ground of appeal:
1. The Court of First Instance was correct in applying the principles established in the
case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3 and
concluding that the postal rue was never applicable in the case.
Submissions:

6SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
2. It has been established in the case of Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155,
postal rule is not applicable in the contracts where the communication has been
effected by instantaneous form.
3. It has been established in the case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 for the
purpose of applying the postal rule, the offer needs to be made as invitation to treat
does not follow an acceptance, it needs to be accompanied by an offer to make a
purchase.
Bundle of Authorities:
Primary Legislation:
Law of Contract
Precedents:
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] EWCA Civ 3
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561
The Respondent submits that the appeal be dismissed.
Leading Counsel Junior Counsel

7SKELETON ARGUMENT & BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
References
Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
Bayern, S., 2015. Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept.
California Law Review, 103, p.67.
Beale, H., Fauvarque-Cosson, B., Rutgers, J. and Vogenauer, S., 2019. Cases, materials and
text on contract law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Carter, J.W. and Courtney, W., 2017. Unexpressed Intention and Contract Construction.
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37(2), pp.326-356.
Hedley, S., 2017. The Law of Electronic Commerce and the Internet in the UK and Ireland.
Routledge-Cavendish.
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2019. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Aspen Publishers.
Mik, E., 2016. Contracts governing the use of websites. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.,
p.70.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Smits, J.M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Waddams, S., 2017. Contract Law and the Challenges of Computer Technology. The Oxford
Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology, p.317.