The Student Room Group

Contract moot question help

I'm a first year law student at uni about to take part in my first ever moot. I'm speaking as the senior respondant for Gregg in the scenario down below and i'm a little confused as to what submissions I ought to be making. I've seen this question floating around online but i've yet to come across any advice for someone speaking as a respondant.
Any help/general nudges in the right direction are appreciated :u:

QUESTION:

Gregg Ramsey is a professional chef, preparing food for wealthy clients across London. Keen to impress his clients, Gregg develops a new menu and decides he requires a number of 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 assistant if the truffle can be grated as he does not require an entire truffle for his recipe. The assistant confirms that the truffle can be grated down to the desired quantity by request. Gregg orders 16 grams at the price displayed (£16,000). The assistant removes the truffle from the display counter and proceeds to grate the required amount.

The assistant then hands Gregg a ticket that confirms the weight and the price of the grated truffle. He 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.

However, 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 type and quality for sale elsewhere for only £600 per gram. After the call, Gregg makes his way back to the food display counter. He tells the assistant that he no longer needs the truffle and hands the ticket back to the assistant.

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

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

Harridges now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1) That the contract was concluded upon verbal acceptance of the customer’s order for 16 grams, prior to the grating of the truffle.
(edited 2 years ago)
I don't know enough (anything actually) about sale of goods where goods are substantially altered (grated) prior to being paid for. This, I presume is going to be the basis of your client's action. I don't think an argument on whether there is a contract or not is going to be particularly fruitful unless you can come up with case law on this kind of thing. Does the custome create an implicit agreement etc.

I personally think you could be advising your client to seek an equitable remedy - that your client relied upon the promise to purchase; and cut and weighed the goods to their detriment, and the customer should be estopped from withdrawing the promise to pay.
Reply 2
Original post by Trinculo
I don't know enough (anything actually) about sale of goods where goods are substantially altered (grated) prior to being paid for. This, I presume is going to be the basis of your client's action. I don't think an argument on whether there is a contract or not is going to be particularly fruitful unless you can come up with case law on this kind of thing. Does the custome create an implicit agreement etc.

I personally think you could be advising your client to seek an equitable remedy - that your client relied upon the promise to purchase; and cut and weighed the goods to their detriment, and the customer should be estopped from withdrawing the promise to pay.

apologies, I mistakenly stated I was speaking on behalf of Harridges but I am actually speaking on behalf of Gregg :s-smilie:
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Tazzie9
aplogies, I mistakenly stated I was speaking on behalf of Harridges but I am actually speaking on behalf of Gregg :s-smilie:

Just apply the opposite case, why there is no contract, in a shop you are not ordinarily obligated to purchase anything until the point of sale. And then you'll have to tackle the estoppel (if they bring it up). I would say that it's the shop's fault for cutting the truffles - they didn't have to. They could just as easily require payment and then cut the truffle.
Reply 4
Original post by Trinculo
Just apply the opposite case, why there is no contract, in a shop you are not ordinarily obligated to purchase anything until the point of sale. And then you'll have to tackle the estoppel (if they bring it up). I would say that it's the shop's fault for cutting the truffles - they didn't have to. They could just as easily require payment and then cut the truffle.

Thanks! So it's worth mentioning ITT's here?
Reply 5
Good luck! Tell me how it goes. :smile:
Original post by Tazzie9
I'm a first year law student at uni about to take part in my first ever moot. I'm speaking as the senior respondant for Gregg in the scenario down below and i'm a little confused as to what submissions I ought to be making. I've seen this question floating around online but i've yet to come across any advice for someone speaking as a respondant.
Any help/general nudges in the right direction are appreciated :u:

QUESTION:

Gregg Ramsey is a professional chef, preparing food for wealthy clients across London. Keen to impress his clients, Gregg develops a new menu and decides he requires a number of 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 assistant if the truffle can be grated as he does not require an entire truffle for his recipe. The assistant confirms that the truffle can be grated down to the desired quantity by request. Gregg orders 16 grams at the price displayed (£16,000). The assistant removes the truffle from the display counter and proceeds to grate the required amount.

The assistant then hands Gregg a ticket that confirms the weight and the price of the grated truffle. He 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.

However, 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 type and quality for sale elsewhere for only £600 per gram. After the call, Gregg makes his way back to the food display counter. He tells the assistant that he no longer needs the truffle and hands the ticket back to the assistant.

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

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

Harridges now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1) That the contract was concluded upon verbal acceptance of the customer’s order for 16 grams, prior to the grating of the truffle.


Hey, I’m stuck on this too, have you managed to do it?
Original post by Trinculo
I don't know enough (anything actually) about sale of goods where goods are substantially altered (grated) prior to being paid for. This, I presume is going to be the basis of your client's action. I don't think an argument on whether there is a contract or not is going to be particularly fruitful unless you can come up with case law on this kind of thing. Does the custome create an implicit agreement etc.

I personally think you could be advising your client to seek an equitable remedy - that your client relied upon the promise to purchase; and cut and weighed the goods to their detriment, and the customer should be estopped from withdrawing the promise to pay.


Hi could you please help me with my question I would really appreciate it
Original post by Trinculo
Just apply the opposite case, why there is no contract, in a shop you are not ordinarily obligated to purchase anything until the point of sale. And then you'll have to tackle the estoppel (if they bring it up). I would say that it's the shop's fault for cutting the truffles - they didn't have to. They could just as easily require payment and then cut the truffle.

Hi could you help me with my question please I would really appreciate any help
Reply 9
You need to look at the law on acceptance would highly recommend this txtbk. TT Arvind Contract Law (2 edn 2019 OUP) If you have access to law trove you would be able to find it. I can't really help you with specific submissions but a few things that you may be able to argue is that there was either no acceptance or that more than verbal communication of acceptance is required to conclude a contract.
(edited 2 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest