Law Moot question 2017/2018Watch
This is the question :
In the Court of Appeal
Cross v Adams 
Dave Adams decided to sell his beloved Porsche 911 Turbo car, as he needed the money to pay for his forthcoming marriage to Lauren. He thought it would be cheaper to sell the car privately rather than through his local Porsche dealership. He put a notice on the rear windscreen of his Porsche stating:
For sale. One careful owner. £35,000 ono. Please telephone 623987 after 6.00pm.
On Monday 1st March at 8.20 am, Bertie Bones was driving to work when he got caught up in a traffic jam. His car was in a long queue behind Archie's car. He noticed the “for sale” sign and having always wanted a 911 turbo made a note of the telephone number intending to phone the owner that evening to make him an offer.
That same morning, Carly Cross, also noticed the “for sale” on Dave’s car whilst she was driving to work. She too was interested in purchasing the car and made a note of the telephone number. During her tea break at 11.00 a.m., she decided to telephone the owner of the Porsche to make them an offer. When she telephoned only Lauren was at home and so Carly left the following message with her: “Tell Dave that I am very interested in purchasing the 911. I am willing to pay £33,500 for the car. If I do not hear from him this afternoon I will assume the car is mine”. Lauren wrote down the message together with Carly’s work telephone number and pinned it to their notice board in the kitchen. When Dave came home from work at 5.15 p.m., he saw the message from Carly and decided to accept her offer. He telephoned the number he was given. Although Carly was still at work when Dave phoned, the switchboard had closed at 5.00 p.m. and so unable to speak directly to Carly, Dave left a voice mail for her saying he would sell the car to her for £33,500.
At 6.05 p.m. Bertie telephoned Dave and offered to buy the 911 from him for the full asking price. Dave accepted. The next day when at 9.25 a.m. Carly heard the voice mail from Dave, she was delighted to learn that the car was hers. She immediately telephoned Dave to arrange for payment and delivery. It was Lauren who told Carly that the car had already been sold to Bertie the previous evening. Believing the car to be rightfully hers, Carly decided to sue Dave for breach of contract.
Deed J in the High Court found for Mr. Adams, and stated there was no contract as:
(1) Miss Cross had not accepted Mr Adams offer to sell the car to her until 9.25 a.m. on Tuesday 2nd March and by then the car had already been rightly sold to Mr. Bones the previous evening.
(2) In any respect it was an express term and condition of the contract that offers could only be made after 6.00 p.m. and since Miss Cross had made her offer at 11.00 a.m. it need not be considered.
Miss Cross appeals to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on the following two grounds:
(1) The contract was formed when Mr. Adams left the voicemail for Miss Cross at 5.15 p.m. on the 1st March and not at 9.25 a.m. on Tuesday 2nd March as stated by the trial judge.
(2) The trial judge erred in that it was not a condition of the contract that offers would only be considered after 6.00 p.m. The time stipulated was merely a convenience and not a condition.
Carly is thus the appellant in this case and Dave the respondent.
You should concentrate on purely contract law principles at common law.
You are instructed to prepare and deliver arguments for either the appellant or respondent as so directed by your tutor. Senior Counsel should take ground one and Junior Counsel should consider ground two.
More law resources on TSR