The Student Room Group

Mooting, please help! I'm the senior appellant!

In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Eric Pollard (Appellant)
-v-
Viv Windsor (Respondent)


Viv has just bought “The Village Shop” and, anxious to please the locals, decides to put an advertisement in the local paper stating that she will sell boxes of luxury chocolate shortbread at a discount price of £2.50, instead of the recommended retail price of £5.00. It also states that there are only 50 boxes available. Viv has recently bought a computer from her son, Scottt, to help her with the running of the shop. The advertisement states that anyone wanting the shortbread should contact Viv in person at the shop or E-mail her at [email protected].

The advertisement appears in the local paper on Saturday.

Eric sees the advertisement at 4.30pm on the Saturday afternoon and immediately sends an E- mail to Viv ordering six boxes of the Shortbread. The E-mail is received on Viv’s machine at 5.09pm on the Saturday.

On Saturday evening Viv realises that the discount was too generous as she is making no money on the shortbread and people are not coming to the shop and buying lots of other groceries as she had hoped. She phones the local paper asking them to put notice in the next day informing people that the discount price is no longer available. The Sunday paper is published at 9am on Sunday morning and it is delivered to Eric at 10.30am.

Viv opens for business at 10.00am on the Sunday. She reads Eric's E-mail at 10.35am, but refuses to sell him the shortbread. She replies stating that the discount is no longer available.

Eric sued Viv for breach of contract but at first instance the judge found for Viv on the following basis:

(A) There was no contact between Viv and Eric since the notice in the paper was not an offer but invitation to treat; and

(B) Even if the notice did amount to an offer it was withdrawn before acceptance applying the principle enunciated in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327.

I'm arguing point A on the side of the appellant (Eric)

PLEASE HELP!!!
Well, what thoughts do you have? If i were you, i'd start with the Carbolic Smoke Ball case and work from there...
Reply 2
Avatar for cliffg
cliffg
7
I'd begin to argue that Partridge v Crittenden illustrates the general rule that advertisements are ITTs. Then go into the ratio of that case, in particular Lord Parker CJ and his reference to Grainger & Son v Gough. The clear statement there is that the general rule protects sellers with limited stock of being in breach through multiple acceptances. Then distinguish it on the grounds that Viv stated clearly that she had she 50 boxes to sell. Carlill, as stated above, gives you lots to work with as well.
Reply 3
Avatar for PLHee
PLHee
OP
Original post by cliffg

Original post by cliffg
I'd begin to argue that Partridge v Crittenden illustrates the general rule that advertisements are ITTs. Then go into the ratio of that case, in particular Lord Parker CJ and his reference to Grainger & Son v Gough. The clear statement there is that the general rule protects sellers with limited stock of being in breach through multiple acceptances. Then distinguish it on the grounds that Viv stated clearly that she had she 50 boxes to sell. Carlill, as stated above, gives you lots to work with as well.


I've figured out how to work on the case of Carlill :smile: but can you please explain how do i relate Pattridge v Crittenden and Grainger v Son & Gough to my case? and what's the significance when Viv stated that she had 50 boxes only?

thanks for your help, really! it's pretty stressful for me considering i'm working on everything all by myself and my junior counsel is doing nothing!! :frown:
Reply 4
Avatar for cliffg
cliffg
7
Partridge v Crittenden is the general rule that an advertisement is an ITT. But part of the reasoning that it should be so is in order to protect a seller who has only a limited stock. Lord Parker CJ refers to the speech of Lord Herschell in Grainger & Son v Gough: "the transmission of such a price list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so ..... " the merchant would be in breach of contract. But Viv has protected herself from this problem by stating that she has 50 boxes, only. Therefore you need to argue that the reasoning behind Partridge ( and thus the assumption that ads are ITTs) does not apply to this ad. I'm sure there are other cases where ads have been treated as offers - in fact I know there are - just can't bring them to mind at the moment - there's one involving an ad in the Times for Moulton bicycles. You'll also be arguing that the ad was capable of being constued as an offer on the grounds that it was certain as to the product, the price etc. and that it went beyond an ITT.
What are the issues by applicant side?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you