Skeleton Argument & Bundle Of Authority for Law of Contract

This presentation includes a Skeleton Argument and Bundle of Authority for Law of Contract. It covers the principles established in various cases such as Edwards v Skyways Ltd, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Smith v Hughes, Hyde v Wrench, Rose & Frank Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd., Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation, and more. It also includes references to books and journals related to contract law.

SKELETON ARGUMENT &
BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY
L A W O F C O N T R A C T

IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL
DIVISION)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN
Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: GROUND 1
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.
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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: 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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: GROUND 2
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.
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.

PRAYER
The Appellant submit that the appeal be granted.

IN THE COURT OF APEEAL (CIVIL
DIVISION)
BETWEEN:
DANIEL
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN
Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: 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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: GROUND 1
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 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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: 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.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT: GROUND 2
Submissions:
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.

PRAYER
The Respondent submits that the appeal be dismissed.

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
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 Tienhov
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 401en
(1880) 5 CPD 344
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561

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.