Contract Law Moot Court Argument: Appellant's Skeleton Argument

This document presents a skeleton argument for the appellant in a Contract Law moot court case before the Supreme Court of England, focusing on the recovery of outstanding payments from Pear Ltd. The argument centers on the principle of promissory estoppel, referencing cases like CLP Ltd v/s HT Ltd, TMM v/s Tungsten, and Hughes v MR. The appellant contends that Pear Ltd's failure to pay is due to financial issues, and the appellant should be allowed to recover the outstanding amount. The argument highlights the application of promissory estoppel to prevent the revocation of promises, and the relevant case precedents that support the appellant's claim, including the implications of the war and other scenarios impacting contract enforcement. The document also includes case summaries and references to support the appellant's position, concluding that Earthware has the right to recover the full payment from Pear.

Contract Law

IN THE HOUNRABLE SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND
BETWEEN
Earthware
…APPELANT
AND
PEAR LTD
….RESPONDENT
SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF LEAD COUNCIL FOR THE APPELANT
Name:
Enrollee Number:
Moot judge:
The main points on which the cases has been raised is that Appellant wants to recover the
outstanding amount which is not being given by Pearl since last 10 months just because of the
problem related to financial issues. Looking at the scenario of the case, it is needed to understand
that appellant must be given the permission to go ahead in this respective case.
GROUND OF APPEAL
It is one of the basic problem which has a direct connection with 'Promissory estoppel'.
These are some of the cases which has direct or indirect link with CLP Ltd v/s HT Ltd , TMM
v/s Tungsten and Hughes v MR. This are some cases where consideration has been not deal with
the promise which is included with consideration (Beecham, 2016).
SUBMISSION FOR GROUND OF APPEAL:
1. There were number of cases which has been discussed which are quite similar
within the presented situation. The given moot is related to 'promissory estoppel'
and on this respective situation some of the cases are CLP Ltd v/s HT ,TMM v/s
Tungsten and Hughes v MR, All these cases are cover this concept. Among all of this
1

mentioned cases TMM v. Tungsten is one of the which has a connection with 'promissory
estoppel'. This case can be used in this respective situation (Finneran, 2017). Talking
about promissory estoppel, it is an estoppel that which helps an individual or a group to
stop them to revoke the promise which has been made without involving any of the
consideration.
2. Proceeding between TMM v. Tungsten, is famous which simply explains that in any of
the situation company will not be able to ask for the payment during the time phase of
war but as soon as war ends, the right is given to appellant or the party which has the
right to ask for the payment which has been given to them.
3. It was also held that the HMM was estopped from going back to the promise of waving
the equity and generally this estoppel will retain legal rights instead extinguishing it.
4. Yet, the estoppel can be used for extinguishing rights only when there will be
payments based on period then there is existence of promise that is done for
reduction due to existing situations.
Authorities:
1. CLP Ltd v/s HT.
2. Hughes v MR.
Free authorities:
1. Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. NPM Co. Ltd
2. D & C Builders v Rees.
2

BUNDLES:
TMM v/s Tungsten
Headnote:
It was found that Tungsten had already got the patient right which has been registered by
TMM. After knowing it, TMM directly waived infringement they paid ten percent of royalty &
remaining thirty percent of payment only in the circumstances where sale exceed by 50 Kg in
any of the particular month (Langenburg and et. al., 2013). All of the payment were needed to be
done by Tungsten in which they had also claim for infringement for the copyright. But,
unfortunately war started and it was the reason the Tungsten did not make the payment within
time period which allow the contract to raised to 'waive' the compensation during war.
Reference:
In this respective situation, HMM cannot be compensated for the payment just because of
war. But, just after the end of war it can be enforced again to give the payment. TMM was
waived off from the promise made by them of removing the payment of equity. So, the estoppel
can only suspect rights but under certain circumstances it could be use for extinguish of rights.
Hughes v MR
Headnote:
It is the case where landlord has provided the prior notice of 6 months which clearly
explains that in any of the situation if repairing work will not be completed then lease will be
forfeited. Both of the party has entered within the negotiation for the purpose of purchase of
freehold of property. It is being believed that if tenant did not perform the work of repairs till the
last minute then in that respective situation negotiation will get cancel and even tenant was
handed the notice which was related with the failure of work related to repairing.
Reference:
It was the principle into which all of the courts of equity has shown their involvement
(Kammerer, 2018). It was declared if in any of the situation shall explain important terms that
involves certainty of legal issue, and even fine for legal forfeiture has been included then in that
respective situation any of the contract will not be enforceable or even it might be kept under
suspension. This will not be allowed in any of the situation where rights ans responsibilities has
not bee given equally which dealing in any of the cases.
Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. NPM Co. Ltd
3

Headnote:
In this case of contract where contract of sales of coffee beans has been made. The
contract has been made between the parties regarding the dealing of case in which which must be
done in pound sterling. But, at the time of sending the invoice to receiver bill was generated in
Kenyan Shillings. When delivery was being made the amount of pound sterling and Kenyan
Shillings was constant. Looking at the situation, delivery was made and even it was accepted to
without having any of the question raised. Suddenly, the pound value decreased and soon
realising this Kenyan Shillings. Due to this, buyer wants to work as per the terms and condition
which has been prepared in the contract.
Reference:
By looking at the situation of the case, it was decided by the court that buyer had no issue
at the time of accepting any of the invoice which has amounted for a clear as well as
unambiguous promise for the purpose of accepting any of the terms and condition (Monk, 2013).
It will be important to understand that amount was accepted even after knowing that it is being
paid in Kenyan Shillings.
D & C Builders v Rees
Headnote:
In this respective case Mr. Rees has given the idea to claimant for conducting the work
related to the development of building at the price of £746. Here, Mr. Rees gave £250 on the
account and looking at this respondent reduces the bill by £14 and the total sum was remaining is
around £482. The respondent wrote to defendant by mentioning about the payment but he was
not successful in it. It was important for respondent to have strong financial position because
company was not performing well and even Mrs. Rees had a knowledge regarding it. Here, Mrs
Rees said that she will give £300 as satisfaction of a debt amount but defendant clearly explains
that remaining payment must be made within the time period of one year. Mrs Rees went to
office and informed that either to accept £300 else she will not pay any amount. But, defendant
requires the money at that particular situation due to which it was important to accept £300. Just
after recovering the £300, he had taken the action for recovering the remaining amount.
Defendant only wants to rely on written receipt as it is demonstrating a promise to accept the
less money.
4

Reference:
It was very easy for the court as Mrs. Rees was simply trying to create the pressure on
claimant so that payment will not be required to pay. But, judges decided that claimants were
successful in this respective case because Mrs. Rees can never the opportunity to rely on estoppel
because fair agreement was not prepared in this case. Also, Mrs. Rees was trying take the
advantage of the situation which was against the law (D & C Builders v Rees ).
Conclusion
After looking at the situation of the case and other case references which has been
included says that Earthware has the right to recover the amount from Pear. Firstly, when
contract was made, there was no consideration in it. The permission was just given by Earthware
so that company can recover from the financial issues. So, looking at the situation of the case,
Pear has to give full and final payment to Earthware.
5

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Beecham, E. C., 2016. 2016 Juvenile Moot Court Competition Problem Introduction. Whittier J.
Child. & Fam. Advoc.. 15. p.225.
Finneran, R.E., 2017. Wherefore moot court. Wash. UJL & Pol'y. 53. p.121.
Langenburg, G. and et. al., 2013. Presenting probabilities in the courtroom: a moot court
exercise. Journal of Forensic Identification. 63(4). p.424.
Kammerer, E. F., 2018. Undergraduate Moot Court: Student Expectations and Perspectives. PS:
Political Science & Politics. 51(1). pp.190-193.
Monk, K. R., 2013. Moot Court Teams, 2013-14.
Online
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 WLR 28. 2018. [Online]. Available Through: <http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/D--and--C-Builders-v-Rees.php>
6