Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Contract Moot Help

Announcements Posted on
Study Help needs new mods! 14-04-2014
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Have a moot coming up soon and this is question. Hate to ask questions and i don't want anyone to tell me how to write the answer or anything like that.
    I'm just a bit stuck on the idea that the offer came BEFORE the grating! If anyone has any cases etc that could help me back this argument up i'd really appreciate it!
    Any tips on Mooting would be amazing as well!



    Gregg Ramsey is a professional chef, preparing food for wealthy clients across London. Keen to impress his clients, Gregg develops a new menu and requires key ingredients to complete his dishes.

    He visits the food hall of the exclusive London department store, Harridges. He approaches a glass display counter that displays a range of imported ingredients from around Europe. Among the ingredients is a rare French truffle, renowned for its exceptional quality of flavour. The truffle is displayed behind the glass counter with a price tag attached which reads: “French Truffle, finest quality, £1000 per gram.”

    Gregg asks the attendant if the truffle can be grated as he does not require an entire truffle. The attendant confirms that the truffle can be grated down to the desired quantity by request. Gregg orders 16 grams at the price displayed. The attendance removes the truffle from the display counter and proceeds to grate the required amount.

    The attendant then hands Gregg a ticket that confirms the weight and price of the grated truffle. The attendant directs Gregg to take the ticket to the cash desk at the far end of the food hall. Once he pays at the cash desk he can then return and collect the truffle.

    Before Gregg reaches the cash desk he receives a call on his mobile phone from Heston, a friend of Gregg’s who is also a chef. Heston tells Gregg that he has seen some French truffle of the same quality for sale for £600 per gram. After the call, Gregg makes his way back to the food display counter. He tells the attendant that he no longer needs the truffle and hands the ticket back to the attendant.

    The attendant calls the manager who tells Gregg that he is required to pay £16,000 as indicated on the ticket. Gregg refuses to pay and Harridges bring a claim against Gregg for breach of contract.

    At first instance it is held the acceptance took place, and the contract was concluded, only once the ticket was presented and the purchase price was paid at the cash desk. Gregg therefore had no contractual obligation to purchase the truffle.

    <b>Harridges now appeal to the Court of appeal on the following ground:

    1) That the contract was concluded upon acceptance of the customer’s order for 16 grams, prior to the grating of the truffle.</b>
    • 10 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Are you the advocate for Harrods or Gordon Ramsay?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Someone else has posted this exact question in the last couple of weeks, should be able to find it by searching.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A, sorry should have said that!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Who are you representing??
    I'm thinking that going back to the basics, it's all about consensus ad idem.
    So, a simple way to do it (okay you research the law Im too lazy) is to find out the point at which both parties' minds met.
    Choices are:
    1- truffle display --> no (maybe ITT)
    2- ordered truffle --> offer
    3- grated truffle and presented the pack with the ticket --> acceptance!
    I think contract was concluded at 3 because at the time both met their minds to transfer the truffle title for 16000 pounds.
    So payment becomes a term...which is breached.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazelnote)
    Who are you representing??
    I'm thinking that going back to the basics, it's all about consensus ad idem.
    So, a simple way to do it (okay you research the law Im too lazy) is to find out the point at which both parties' minds met.
    Choices are:
    1- truffle display --> no (maybe ITT)
    2- ordered truffle --> offer
    3- grated truffle and presented the pack with the ticket --> acceptance!
    I think contract was concluded at 3 because at the time both met their minds to transfer the truffle title for 16000 pounds.
    So payment becomes a term...which is breached.
    I'm appellant for Haridges. I can't argue it happened at 3. I have to argue it happened BEFORE grating, which means that the contract would be concluded by merely the acceptance of price and weight.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You said you have to argue "acceptance of the customer’s order for 16 grams, prior to the grating"---then my approach may still be applied, you may just say that was when consensus ad idem came. So both grating and payment become the performance.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazelnote)
    You said you have to argue "acceptance of the customer’s order for 16 grams, prior to the grating"---then my approach may still be applied, you may just say that was when consensus ad idem came. So both grating and payment become the performance.
    Thank you very much, do you know of any case law that i could use to back this point up? I have a few cases, but hoping to find one that has a strong argument in it.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How about Chapelton v Urban Barry District Council?
    The one about the beach chairs... held: putting chairs on beach = offer, because the business owner was willing to contract with whoever was going to pay the price displayed. (So acceptance took place when chair was taken? please read for yourself hehe I've forgotten. should be right. )
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazelnote)
    How about Chapelton v Urban Barry District Council?
    The one about the beach chairs... held: putting chairs on beach = offer, because the business owner was willing to contract with whoever was going to pay the price displayed. (So acceptance took place when chair was taken? please read for yourself hehe I've forgotten. should be right. )
    Yes thanks, this could possibly work in my favour, but no object was taken in this case, merely acceptance through words, so not entirely sure if it will back me up enough!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    but no object was taken in this case, merely acceptance through words, so not entirely sure if it will back me up enough

    It appears you are looking for similar cases to argue by anology. While this is often a technique used especially in tort cases, but for formation of contract, it is best to go through the policy reasonings of ITT, Offer, Communication of acceptance to support your arguments and form a view.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ktwolves)
    but no object was taken in this case, merely acceptance through words, so not entirely sure if it will back me up enough

    It appears you are looking for similar cases to argue by anology. While this is often a technique used especially in tort cases, but for formation of contract, it is best to go through the policy reasonings of ITT, Offer, Communication of acceptance to support your arguments and form a view.
    Okay thank you very much, i appreciate all your comments
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    NOTES

    An offer to the public will be treated as an invitation to treat because if it was treated as offers the advertiser might find himself contractually bound to sell more goods than he in fact owned. Partridge v Crittenden, Fisher v Bell.

    However, in case where an offer implies a limited stock being made availabLe, the above argument will not hold, see Carbolic. In general the courts are likely to take a pragmatic approach when considering whether an offer or a mere invitation to treat has been made on the facts of the particular circumstances see Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is an example where the court has to reasons backwards to decide on the consequences exclusion clauses being found at the notice on the entrance and those "ticket cases".

    An offer must be present on one's mind when one accepts it to consitute an acceptance since acceptance must be communicated see Rv Clarke......to what extend is an acceptance ignorance of the offer valid? Someone ignorance of an offer performs an act requested by the offeror cannot sue on the contract see Gibbons v Proctor. In all cases, the court is actually implying acceptance based on who should bear the risks, in face to face transactions and instantenous communication?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ktwolves)
    NOTES

    An offer to the public will be treated as an invitation to treat because if it was treated as offers the advertiser might find himself contractually bound to sell more goods than he in fact owned. Partridge v Crittenden, Fisher v Bell.

    However, in case where an offer implies a limited stock being made availabLe, the above argument will not hold, see Carbolic. In general the courts are likely to take a pragmatic approach when considering whether an offer or a mere invitation to treat has been made on the facts of the particular circumstances see Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is an example where the court has to reasons backwards to decide on the consequences exclusion clauses being found at the notice on the entrance and those "ticket cases".

    An offer must be present on one's mind when one accepts it to consitute an acceptance since acceptance must be communicated see Rv Clarke......to what extend is an acceptance ignorance of the offer valid? Someone ignorance of an offer performs an act requested by the offeror cannot sue on the contract see Gibbons v Proctor. In all cases, the court is actually implying acceptance based on who should bear the risks, in face to face transactions and instantenous communication?
    Sorry contract is not my strongest point as you can probably tell, and in no means do i want anyone to do the answer for me, but i'm struggling to see how i can apply above to said argument.
    I understand that i could argue Gregg was ignorant of the offer, and that Harridges performed the act that was requested by him.
    I'm also struggling to find a single submission to argue (i have 5 minutes) i know the point of appeal is before grating, therefore can that just be my submission and i use various case examples to back up my submission... or does my submission need to be a fact based on a single case?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wkd)
    Sorry contract is not my strongest point as you can probably tell, and in no means do i want anyone to do the answer for me, but i'm struggling to see how i can apply above to said argument.
    I understand that i could argue Gregg was ignorant of the offer, and that Harridges performed the act that was requested by him.
    I'm also struggling to find a single submission to argue (i have 5 minutes) i know the point of appeal is before grating, therefore can that just be my submission and i use various case examples to back up my submission... or does my submission need to be a fact based on a single case?
    You won't find a case exactly on point - think of how unlikely this issue is to be litigated in actual practice. The problem is set up to make the amounts worth bothering about, but in general if a customer orders £4 worth of sausages and then decides against it and leaves it on a shelf somewhere the supermarket will not take action because it just wouldn't be worth it.

    There is a criminal case Pilgram v Rice-smith and Another relating to a fraudulent sale at an undervalue at the deli counter. The judge there says something along the lines of "the person at the deli counter had no authority to make a sale at an undervalue", which implies that if the price had been correct there would have been a sale at the deli counter. Afaik that is the only case where deli counter transactions have ever been litigated.

    Is this a really common problem question or something? This is the 4th time I have seen this exact thread in the past month.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    You won't find a case exactly on point - think of how unlikely this issue is to be litigated in actual practice. The problem is set up to make the amounts worth bothering about, but in general if a customer orders £4 worth of sausages and then decides against it and leaves it on a shelf somewhere the supermarket will not take action because it just wouldn't be worth it.

    There is a criminal case Pilgram v Rice-smith and Another relating to a fraudulent sale at an undervalue at the deli counter. The judge there says something along the lines of "the person at the deli counter had no authority to make a sale at an undervalue", which implies that if the price had been correct there would have been a sale at the deli counter. Afaik that is the only case where deli counter transactions have ever been litigated.

    Is this a really common problem question or something? This is the 4th time I have seen this exact thread in the past month.
    Okay thanks for your help! Yes i guess i was looking for a case, word for word on the point i wanted! This is a case i already had down and am certainly going to use.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It is all about Intention

    An invitation to treat is intention to invite others to enter into negotiation
    An offer is intention to be bound by the statemen of intention so made.
    An acceptance is to conduct onself with the clear intention of having the final words on the process of negotiation.
    A counter offer is to show an intention to continue negotation.

    What the courts need to decide, having assessed the facts objectively determine the parties' intention, to rule in a manner that makes "business sense". You are to argue on the basis of "business sense".
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    There is a criminal case Pilgram v Rice-smith and Another relating to a fraudulent sale at an undervalue at the deli counter.
    Is it acceptable to use a criminal law case, in a contract moot?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)

    There is a criminal case Pilgram v Rice-smith and Another relating to a fraudulent sale at an undervalue at the deli counter. The judge there says something along the lines of "the person at the deli counter had no authority to make a sale at an undervalue", which implies that if the price had been correct there would have been a sale at the deli counter.
    Also i've been reading up on this case and i'm worried that it could fire back in my face, yes you can argue that had the price been correct there would have been a sale at the deli counter...
    However surely you could also argue that because the person at the deli counter had no authority to make a sale at undervalue, they have no authority to make a sale at all?

    Your advice on this would be much appreciated
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wkd)
    Also i've been reading up on this case and i'm worried that it could fire back in my face, yes you can argue that had the price been correct there would have been a sale at the deli counter...
    However surely you could also argue that because the person at the deli counter had no authority to make a sale at undervalue, they have no authority to make a sale at all?

    Your advice on this would be much appreciated
    Well, your interpretation is as good as mine, that throw-away one-liner is the only thing there is to go on. I suppose it would be strange to mention specifically that they had no authority to make a sale at an undervalue if they had no authority to make a sale at all. In any case it has to be weak authority at best as I doubt whether the judge thought specifically about contract law when he made it.

    I think I recall reading that the case was mentioned in an article so if you do a search on Westlaw etc you might find that.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 22, 2012
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.