Skeleton Argument and Bundle of Authority: Contract Law Moot

This document presents a comprehensive contract law moot court project, meticulously outlining the arguments for both the appellant and the respondent. The appellant's argument focuses on the existence of a valid contract, emphasizing principles from cases like *Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company* and *Edwards v Skyways Ltd*, and addressing the application of the postal rule. The respondent's argument counters this, asserting that there was no intention to create a valid contract and that the postal rule was not applicable. The document includes a detailed skeleton argument for each side, supported by a bundle of authorities comprising primary legislation and key precedents such as *Smith v Hughes*, *Hyde v Wrench*, *Rose & Frank Co. v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd.*, and *Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation*. The arguments are structured around specific grounds of appeal, with detailed submissions and case citations to support each point. This project offers a thorough exploration of contract law principles, providing a valuable resource for legal students and professionals seeking to understand the nuances of contract formation, offer and acceptance, and the application of legal precedents.

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.