Skeleton Argument on Behalf of Quid Land Ltd. - Court of Appeal Case

This document presents a skeleton argument prepared for the Court of Appeal on behalf of Quid Land Ltd. The case concerns a breach of contract claim arising from a Black Friday sales advertisement. The argument contests the district court's decision, asserting that the advertisement was an invitation to treat, not an offer, and that even if it were an offer, it was withdrawn before acceptance. The document outlines the background of the case, including the cancellation of the sales due to Quid Land Ltd. entering administration, and Mr. Hamilton's subsequent claim. It references relevant authorities and documents, and emphasizes the application of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and consumer contract regulations. The argument provides detailed grounds for the appeal, focusing on the timing of the sales cancellation and Mr. Hamilton's attempted acceptance, concluding that Quid Land Ltd. did not breach the contract and should not be liable for damages.

ESSAY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Authorities/ Documents relied upon................................................................................................2
Ground.............................................................................................................................................2
Background......................................................................................................................................3
Submission.......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) CASE NO: K7/2020/1667
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT
JUSTICE WEDDERBURN
BETWEEN Quid Land Ltd.
AND
Mr. Hamilton
SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON THE BEHALF OF THE
APPLICATIONT: Quid Land Ltd.
Introduction
Skeleton Argument is a kind of document which is basically produced for the court. It
helps in creating a bare bone of the case before the trial. Here, Skeleton Argument will be
prepared for Court of Appeal1. It is a general provision which is prepared to be submitted in the
court in which appeal is served upon each respondent involved within the case. This argument
helps the judge to focus upon the issue which is focused on by the applicant. In this applicant list
all the documents that are related and listed in core bundle index on court of appeal. If an
applicant wants to appeal in the court of appeal it is extremely important for them to develop an
skeleton argument and it should be concise. it should be beneficial for the judges who are
involved to understand the grounds on the basis of which this appeal has been submitted as they
will not be having previous knowledge of the case of involvement within the case. It should help
in specifying arguments in a clear and concise manner with cross- reference to all kinds of
required documents so that it becomes easy for the judge to understand complete case,
background history of the case and other required information.
This is an appeal brought by Quid Land Ltd. Against decision of district court judge
found that the original advertisement amounted to an offer and Mr. Hamilton had begun to
perform his acceptance when Mr. Hamilton had sued us for breach of contract in district court. In
this appeal is made to high court that advertisement was an initiation to treat and not an offer and
even if it was an offer, then in such case it was withdrawn by placing the advertisement prior to
any kind of acceptance of Mr. Hamilton.
1 Re, A., 2016. COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION).
1

Authorities/ Documents relied upon
Authorities upon which Applicant relies upon: consultation with opposite advocate, Quid
Land Ltd. advocate. Documents upon which Quid Land Ltd. relies upon is Black Friday sales
advertisement, sales cancellation advertisement, district court judgement. According to the law
of contract advertisements are always invitation to bargain and it arises in pre-contractual
negotiations. It is a process of bidding when the process starts. Before the process starts and sales
offer is accepted by the buyer it always remains an invitation to treat.
Ground
Ground is an issue or obligation which is raised by the applicant with respect to the
previous court passing judgement on the basis of receiving failure of justice to the incompetency
of the court is known as Grounds2. Ground or reason on the basis of which this court of Appeal
skeleton Argument is being filed have been specified below.
The district judge erred in providing a proper judgement in Quid Land Ltd. v Hamilton case and
concluded that there was a breech of contract. They have failed to provide a proper statement and
below reasons rightly indicate that there was no breech of contract and a false statement of
decision has been provided. These reasons will help in justifying grounds for the court of appeal.
 Advertisement of sales is always an initiation to treat before the sales is started. Organization
have right to cancel the sales till it is not started or accepted by anyone.
 An advertisement only becomes an offer when it is started and when it is accepted by a
buyer. Only in such case sales is considered as an offer and breech of contract. The sales
were cancelled before Mr. Hamilton had accepted it as it was posted on the same medium
upon which sales advertisement was posted before. Performance of accepting the offer does
not start whenever the customer wants in fact it starts the day the sales was suppose to start
so it was not to be considered as his performance to begin the acceptance3. Even if another
aspect of this situation is seen then the sales offer was cancelled at 8:30 PM but Mr.
Hamilton had started his purchase acceptance at 9 PN when the offer was already cncelled.
2 Parker, C., 2019. Administrative law: cases and materials. University of Namibia Press.
3 Isaac, N., 2019. Appealing and challenging awards. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal &
Valuation, 8(1), pp.53-60.
2

Background
In skeleton argument of Court of Appeal it is important for the applicant to provide a
detailed background information to the case and background because of which this case had been
done. Background information of the case helps the judge to understand that the case is about
and provides an idea to them about point of view of both the parties and on what basis lower
court had provided their judgement. Here, is the background information of the case in a detailed
manner. Quid Land Ltd. had placed an advertisement for Black Friday sales upon social medial 2
weeks prior to the sales date that was 29th November. In this sale they said they advertised buy
one and get two on selected items and 30 percent off upon every digital item on first come first
serve basis. Just one day prior to the sales Quid Land Ltd. had gone into administration due to
which management was taken over by another company that was Dollar Ltd. Dollar Ltd. sent
immediate instructions to cancel the Black Friday sales upon social media at 8:30 Pm on 28th
November. Mr. Hamilton who was excited to buy a digital watch as a Christmas present for his
son has not seen this news feed and had slept outside the marked area of the shop so that he
could be first in the queue. But he did not see the news feed upon social media because his phone
ran out of charge and waited whole night outside the store. When on Black Friday Dollar Ltd.
opened the shop, he attempts to buy digital watch for 30 percent off but the staff refused to seal
the item to him and as a result he sued Quid Land Ltd. for breech of contract in district court.
District court said that original advertisement amounted to an offer where Mr. Hamilton had
begun to perform his acceptance by queuing outside the shop in the manner directed. The District
court also said that Quid Land Ltd. failed to prevent Mr. Hamilton to prevent his performance by
queuing outside the shop so it was breech of contract. Quid Land Ltd. found this decision unfair
so they appealed to the Court of Appeal that it was not an offer in fact it was an initiation.
Submission
Submission is one of the most important things which is required to be focused upon in
Skeleton argument in order to focus upon cross Appeal4. Submission helps in enhancing overall
impact upon an argument. It helps the Applicant to shoot his appeal and persuade the court for
their case. It helps in providing court with a reasoned justification of findings in Applicant’s
4 Bor, H., 2020. APPEALS. In DIFC COURTS PRACTICE. Edward Elgar Publishing.
3

favour. This helps in providing a help to the judge so that they can maintain quality of their
judgement5.
In this case goods act is applicable. According to sales of Goods Act, 1979 of Parliament
of UK is applicable to selling and buying of goods. It is applied when goods are sold or
transferred for a monetary consideration. As per this Act unpaid seller has some rights over the
goods or services that are to be sold by them. According to this right, seller can cancel selling of
its goods, products or services under certain conditions. According to law of UK a Contract is
counted as breech of contract if it has been accepted by all the parties involved in it6.
According to cancellation of an offer to purchase can be cancelled under certain
conditions such as: First on the basis of clause included in the offer it can be cancelled but this
clause is not included in this case. But one of the main conditions on the basis of which contract
can be cancelled is when the offering part lawfully agrees to cancel the agreement before even
the other party accepts the offer. In this case sales offer was cancelled at 8:30 PM but the process
of acceptance by Mr. Hamilton had started at 9 PM so as per this section the sales offer was
already cancelled even before it was accepted by Mr. Hamilton.
As per the consumer contract regulations, 2013 there are some cancellation rights for
both the customer and for the seller7. As per these regulations’ seller can cancel the offer made
by them within 14 days of the offer from the date it was made. The offer can be cancelled till no
customer has come to buy the product or service offered by them. If the customer comes to buy
the product which is being offered then in such case the offer cannot be cancelled i.e. as per this
right of seller before arrival of the customer for purchasing the product offer can be cancelled. In
this case of Quid Land Ltd. v Hamilton, the offer was made 2 weeks before the offer date i.e.
exactly 14 days prior to the date of offering. So, 14 days condition was fulfilled in this. Another
condition was that the offer can be cancelled prior the customers arrives to purchase the product.
In this case even this condition was fulfilled because the offer was cancelled at 8: 30 PM
whereas Mr. Hamilton begun his acceptance to purchase offer at 9: 00 PM after the sales was
5 Thomas, M. and Cradduck, L., 2019. Written submissions. In The Art of Mooting. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
6 Bezpartochnyi, M., 2016. European model of consumer protection.
7 Becher, S.I., 2018. Unintended consequences and the design of consumer protection
legislation. Tul. L. Rev., 93, p.105.
4

cancelled and information regarding it was made official. So, from these arguments it is clear
that both the terms and condition of cancellation of offer was fulfilled by Quid Land Ltd. So,
there was no breach of contract. So, it can be said that according to the above arguments it is
clear that judgement or decision taken by the district court was wrongly made and there was no
breach of contract.
Conclusion
From the above Skeleton argument in the court of Appeal on behalf of Quid Land Ltd. it
has been concluded that the judgement given by district court was erred and there was no breach
of contract done by Quid Land Ltd. From this Skeleton argument it is clear that Quid Land Ltd.
is not supposed to pay the damage of £2000 to Mr. Hamilton. On the basis of grounds, it has
been concluded that if the offer was an invitation to treat then in this case there was initiation of
contract and that could have been changed and if it was an offer then even in this case the offer
was withdrawn prior to acceptance of Mr. Hamilton. There was no chance of breech of contract
in both case of defined grounds on the basis of which this appeal has been applied to high court.
Quid Land Ltd. were not supposing to pay the damage of £2000 to Mr. Hamilton in either of the
cases. In the above skeleton statement, many submissions have been done that helps in focusing
upon cross appeal. From the following submission it was clear that there are many laws,
legislation or regulations that provides some rights of cancelling for both customer and to the
seller. Cancellation rights of the seller has two main conditions and, in this case, both the
conditions were fulfilled i.e. first of was cancelling of offer within 14 days and second was
cancelling of offer before the acceptance offer started. So, from this skeleton argument it is clear
that the judgement made by district court was erred and there was no breech of contract and Mr.
Hamilton has sued Quid Land Ltd. falsely.
5