Quid Land Ltd vs Hamilton: Skeleton Argument for Court of Appeal Case

This document presents a skeleton argument from the Court of Appeal case of Quid Land Ltd vs. Hamilton, concerning a breach of contract claim. The case revolves around an advertisement for a Black Friday sale, where the plaintiff, Mr. Hamilton, sued Quid Land Ltd after the sale was cancelled following a company takeover. The argument focuses on two main grounds: the improper exclusion and admission of evidence by the county court, and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. The report delves into the details of the advertisement, the cancellation, and Mr. Hamilton's actions, analyzing the legal principles of contract law, the nature of advertisements as offers, and the absence of a binding contract between the parties. The conclusion asserts that no contract existed, thus no breach occurred, and Quid Land Ltd should not be liable for damages. The document highlights the importance of agreement, legal obligation, and consideration within contract law, and emphasizes that an advertisement constitutes an offer, not a contract, therefore not legally binding.

WORD
1

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4
2

in the court of appeal (civil division)
on appeal from high court
justice wedderburn
between quid land ltd vs Hamilton
skeleton argument
on behalf of the
respondent
INTRODUCTION
1. this is the first hearing of application in court of appeal that has been made under
8/8/2020 of quid land ltd for judgement of county court for an order given in defendant of
Mr. Hamilton. so, this skeleton argument is for first case management conference in these
proceedings. 1
2. in this the hearing is about breach of contract between quid land ltd and Mr Hamilton
regarding sale of black Friday. it is identified that Mr. Hamilton has sued qui land ltd for
breach of contract which w2as done on basis of an ad given. here, local county court
found that there is breach of contract so quid land ltd is liable to pay to Mr Hamilton
damage of €2000. but quid land has made an appeal to court of appeal for it. 3
Authorities/ document relied upon
there are certain documents which can be relied on and used in court for it. they are as follows :
Statement of county court order :
Document of take over of administration by dollar ltd
Proof of ad on social media displayed by quid land ltd
Proof of issue or notice of ad cancelled by dollar ltd on social media.
1 Hambly, J., 2019. Interactions and Identities in UK Asylum Appeals: Lawyers and Law in a
Quasi-Legal Setting. In Asylum Determination in Europe (pp. 195-218). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
2
3 Fekete, D., Fontbona, J. and Kyprianou, A.E., 2019. Skeletal stochastic differential equations
for continuous-state branching processes. Journal of Applied Probability, 56(4), pp.1122-1150.
3

Ground 1/ 2
1. the appeal is made on basis of certain ground due to which in court of appeal, quid land
ltd has made an appeal. here, first ground is legal one of no improper exclusion and
admission of evidence. here, county court has taken decision on basis of improper
exclusion of evidence. in that it is determined that there are enough evidence on basis of
which decision can be justified. first one is that there was no contract made between both
parties as no agreement was done. the ad was only an offer which is considered as
invitation by court. 4 in addition, Mr. Hamilton did not saw ad in which dollar ltd
cancelled offer.
2. Another ground is lack of sufficient evidence to support guilty. the decision taken by
court is taken with improper evidence. there is nothing taken into consideration of
contract law and how it applied in such case. Alongside, court did not observe that there
was no breach of contract made into it and only basis of an advertisement offer decision
was taken. thus, county court did not considered Mr Hamilton mistake that he did not saw
ad which was cancelled by dollar ltd. thus, there is no breach of contract done in it. so,
court found it company to be in guilty.
3. thus, on basis of these two grounds appeal is being made by quid land ltd. They both are
legal ground due to which appeal is made. It is necessary to mention ground in appeal so
that it is cleared that on what legal basis it is done.
Background
1. this is case of Mr Hamilton and Quid land ltd where the company placed an ad on social
media. in ad it was mentioned about the black Friday sale that is buy 1 get 2 free on
limited items in store. also, there was 30% off all electronic accessories. it also stated
about first come first serve and to stand outside entrance area. 5
2. Mr. Hamilton saw this and decided to visit store and buy it. he reached there at 9. 00 p.m.
on Thursday. he set up his camp outside main entrance so that he will be first in queue. he
4 Minix, L.C., 2017. Examining Rule 11 (b)(1)(n) Error: Guilty Pleas, Appellate Waiver, and
Dominguez Benitez. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 74, p.551
5 Board, T.W.C.A., 2017. Hughes, Ralph v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co.
4

was excited to buy digital camera and designer watch as gift 6to be given to his children.
However, the store was not opened on Thursday. but he did not though of it.
3. it was identified that quid land ltd administration was taken over by another company
that is dollar ltd. on 28 November. after that a decision was taken by the company
immediately cancelled black Friday sale. it was also updated on social media at 8.30 p m.
4. Mr Hamilton did not saw that update of cancellation of black Friday sale as he was on his
way and his phone was discharged. 7
5. When dollar ltd store was opened on Friday, Mr Hamilton purchased camera and
designer watch as per ad of 2 weeks ago. But the sales officer denied to sell it at 30 %
discount. so, Mr. Hamilton sued quid land ltd for breach of contract.
6. in the local county court judge found that ad placed by quid land was original offer and as
per contract law Mr Hamilton accepted that by reaching outside shop on night of 28
November at 9 .00 p.m. Hence, judge stated that company can not restrict him to
complete his offer. so, there is breach of contract and quid land ltd is liable for it. hence,
company need to pay €2000 as damage to him.
So, the local county court ordered case in favour of Hamilton saying that original
advertisement amount to offer and Mr Hamilton began his acceptance by staying outside shop.
therefore, judge ordered that quid land ltd is liable for breach of contract and has to pay €2000 as
damage to him. 8
Submission
It can be concluded that quid land ltd has not broken breach of contract. this is because a
per law the advertisement was an invitation but not an offer. along with it, if that would have
been offer than it can be withdrawn prior to be accepted by Mr. Hamilton. Moreover, as per
contract law there has to be present essential elements in it that are an agreement, intention to
legal obligation and payment. however, an ad is not considered as contract. it is because there are
not elements of contract included in it. it only gives an offer to people as it depends on them to
6
7 Abel, J., 2018. Batson’s Appellate Appeal and Trial Tribulations. Columbia Law
Review, 118(3), pp.713-768.
8 Smit, N.M., Morgan, R.M. and Lagnado, D.A., 2018. A systematic analysis of misleading
evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales. Science & Justice, 58(2), pp.128-137
5

accept it or reject it. but in contract there is agreement done between two parties to exchange
products or service. moreover, here agreement is bind by law. but in this case there is no such
contract made between Mr Hamilton and company. it means that no agreement is signed, legal
obligation is made and payment is considered. furthermore, a per UK law an advertisement is not
usually offer. 9
1. breach of contract and contract law
contract law of 1999 is a law which is followed for an agreement done between both parties. It is
like a contract between them regarding any exchange of product or service. Basically, it is made
between a supplier or two parties. There are several elements which is to be adhered in it.
Usually, terms and conditions need to be followed by both of them in contract law. also, the
terms and conditions state duties of parties which needs to be followed. thus, it is considered as
valid contract. a contract is breached when any of specified terms and condition is not completed
by either party. besides, there are essential elements of contract that makes it legally enforceable.
so, it is found that there is no contract which has been done between parties. 10 other than this, no
laws are applied in case of ad which are placed by companies on social media. it is considered as
an offer.
2. Advertisement is only offer but not contract -
It is analysed that ad is an offer because it does include provide anything to accept or
reject. there are several offers which is provided by companies to people. likewise, quid land ltd
provided an offer of buy 1 get 2 free on black Friday sale. however, an ad is not considered as
contract. it is because there are not elements of contract included in it. it only gives an offer to
people as it depends on them to accept it or reject it. but in contract there is agreement done
between two parties to exchange products or service. moreover, here agreement is bind by law. it
means that any breach in contract will result in taking legal action. hence, in advertisement only
offer is made but not contract. there is no agreement done between both parties. also, as per
contract act there is no legal obligation applied on it. therefore, it is not considered as contract. it
is because in this no written agreement is there between company and customer. so, there is no
9 King, N.J. and Heise, M., 2019. Misdemeanor Appeals. BUL Rev., 99, p.1933.
10 Campbell, J.R., 2019. The World of Home Office Presenting Officers. In Asylum
Determination in Europe (pp. 91-108). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
6

chance of contract breach in it. there are many cases where company refuse to deal as per ad
given but it is not considered as breach of contract. 11
3. No contract agreement between company and Mr. Hamilton
from case it is observed that there is no contract or agreement made between Mr
Hamilton and quid land ltd. so, when there is no agreement done then it is not considered as
contract. the company only displayed an ad which is considered as an offer. also, in contract a
promise is done by either parties to done what is written in agreement. But in this case there was
no promise done. thus, it is said that there was no agreement made between them. this state that
there is no breach of contract in it. Hence, there is no contract. so, quid land ltd is not liable to
pay any compensation to Mr Hamilton. agreement is written way and there are some laws
implied on it.
4. Cancellation of ad by dollar ltd on 28 November at 8. 30 p.m.
it is found from case that dollar ltd took over management of quid land ldt. so, after taking it
they immediately cancelled sale of black Friday. 12 it was also updated on social media regarding
that. so, it is not that company did not inform about cancel of ad on social media. it was updated
at that time only. thus, all people saw that ad but not Mr Hamilton. it is because his phone was
discharged. thus, it is not fault of quid land ltd if Hamilton did not saw update. if he had seen
update of it then he might not have come over at store to buy product.
CONCLUSION
thus, as it is stated that there is no contract made between Mr Hamilton and quid land ltd
because there was no acceptance of agreement done by him. Also, there was no legal
consideration in it which was applied. thus, as per contract law when there is no contract done
then there will be no breach of contract. The advertisement was only an offer which was made to
Hamilton. therefore, there are no grounds on basis of which quid land ltd is liable to pay damage
to Mr Hamilton of €2000. besides that, there is no breach of contract in it. Also, if it would have
been an offer than instead of ad actual offer was to be made to him before he would accept it.
11 Edmunds, C.F., 2016. The Judicial Sieve: A Critical Analysis of Adequate Briefing Standards
in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Tul. L. Rev., 91, p.561
12 Miller, N., 2017. SEAL APPEAL: A naturalist’s guide to gray seal interpretation (Doctoral
dissertation, Duke University).
7

hence, quid land ltd wants to over turn the county court decision of paying of damage of
€2000 to Mr Hamilton. this is because there is no breach of contract which is done in it.
Mr. Jack downey
North avenue
Quid land ldt
London, UK
10/8/2020
8

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Abel, J., 2018. Batson’s Appellate Appeal and Trial Tribulations. Columbia Law Review, 118(3),
pp.713-768.
Board, T.W.C.A., 2017. Hughes, Ralph v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co.
Campbell, J.R., 2019. The World of Home Office Presenting Officers. In Asylum Determination
in Europe (pp. 91-108). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Edmunds, C.F., 2016. The Judicial Sieve: A Critical Analysis of Adequate Briefing Standards in
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Tul. L. Rev., 91, p.561.
Fekete, D., Fontbona, J. and Kyprianou, A.E., 2019. Skeletal stochastic differential equations for
continuous-state branching processes. Journal of Applied Probability, 56(4), pp.1122-
1150.
Hambly, J., 2019. Interactions and Identities in UK Asylum Appeals: Lawyers and Law in a
Quasi-Legal Setting. In Asylum Determination in Europe (pp. 195-218). Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
King, N.J. and Heise, M., 2019. Misdemeanor Appeals. BUL Rev., 99, p.1933.
Miller, N., 2017. SEAL APPEAL: A naturalist’s guide to gray seal interpretation (Doctoral
dissertation, Duke University).
Minix, L.C., 2017. Examining Rule 11 (b)(1)(n) Error: Guilty Pleas, Appellate Waiver, and
Dominguez Benitez. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 74, p.551.
Smit, N.M., Morgan, R.M. and Lagnado, D.A., 2018. A systematic analysis of misleading
evidence in unsafe rulings in England and Wales. Science & Justice, 58(2), pp.128-137.
9