Need help with moot script
NutriBar Ltd were promoting a new energy bar. Their promotional material
guaranteed that the ‘NutriBar’ would give consumers 12-hours enhanced
performance levels. They targeted enthusiastic locals who were engaging in DIY
to save on building costs in a tough economy.
On posters displayed around Essex, NutriBar Ltd promised to ‘pay £1000 to anyone
who bought and ate a ’NutriBar’ every day for at least two weeks and was still
exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift’. They added that the
‘NutriBar’ was ‘approved’ by Lloyd Food Tech Industries - market leaders in the
production of protein and energy shakes.
Arinda and Namara were building an Orangery at home ahead of their big birthday
parties in Spring. They purchased and consumed the NutriBars for two weeks as
guided. Contrary to the advertisement, they suffered extreme exhaustion resulting
in severe disruption of their building works. NutriBar Ltd removed their posters
after three weeks of advertising as they were not proving popular in Essex and
some health concerns had arisen regarding consumption of their products.
The extreme exhaustion forced Arinda and Namara to hire Cowboy Builders to
finish the Orangery.
Arinda and Namara sought £50,000 in damages (£49,000 paid to Cowboy Builders
and £1000 reward).
NutriBar Ltd argued that the mention of the £1000 was a mere invitation to treat.
They also argued that inside the NutriBar packets was an exemption clause which
excluded any liability.
At trial, Ludmila J found that:
The advertisement in the posters was an offer which could not be revoked once
performance has begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the
contract as reasonable steps were not taken to bring it to claimants' attention.
NutriBar Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
Moot Points:
1. The advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. Even if it was an offer,
it has been validly withdrawn by NutriBar Ltd when they removed their posters
from Essex.
2. The exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract.
You are representing Arinda and Namara (Respondents) on appeal.
guaranteed that the ‘NutriBar’ would give consumers 12-hours enhanced
performance levels. They targeted enthusiastic locals who were engaging in DIY
to save on building costs in a tough economy.
On posters displayed around Essex, NutriBar Ltd promised to ‘pay £1000 to anyone
who bought and ate a ’NutriBar’ every day for at least two weeks and was still
exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift’. They added that the
‘NutriBar’ was ‘approved’ by Lloyd Food Tech Industries - market leaders in the
production of protein and energy shakes.
Arinda and Namara were building an Orangery at home ahead of their big birthday
parties in Spring. They purchased and consumed the NutriBars for two weeks as
guided. Contrary to the advertisement, they suffered extreme exhaustion resulting
in severe disruption of their building works. NutriBar Ltd removed their posters
after three weeks of advertising as they were not proving popular in Essex and
some health concerns had arisen regarding consumption of their products.
The extreme exhaustion forced Arinda and Namara to hire Cowboy Builders to
finish the Orangery.
Arinda and Namara sought £50,000 in damages (£49,000 paid to Cowboy Builders
and £1000 reward).
NutriBar Ltd argued that the mention of the £1000 was a mere invitation to treat.
They also argued that inside the NutriBar packets was an exemption clause which
excluded any liability.
At trial, Ludmila J found that:
The advertisement in the posters was an offer which could not be revoked once
performance has begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the
contract as reasonable steps were not taken to bring it to claimants' attention.
NutriBar Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
Moot Points:
1. The advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. Even if it was an offer,
it has been validly withdrawn by NutriBar Ltd when they removed their posters
from Essex.
2. The exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract.
You are representing Arinda and Namara (Respondents) on appeal.
The first point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is a statement that is made by a party to another party, which indicates that the party is willing to enter into negotiations with the other party, but does not itself create a binding contract.
In this case, the advertisement in the posters stated that NutriBar Ltd would "pay £1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift." This statement does not clearly indicate that NutriBar Ltd was making an offer to enter into a contract. Instead, it could be interpreted as NutriBar Ltd simply inviting people to try their product and see if it worked for them.
The second point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. An exemption clause is a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one of the parties to the contract. In this case, the exemption clause stated that NutriBar Ltd was not liable for any damages that were caused by the use of their product.
In order for an exemption clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract. This means that the parties to the contract must have agreed to the clause, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, there is no evidence that Arinda and Namara agreed to the exemption clause. They did not sign any contract with NutriBar Ltd, and there is no evidence that they were aware of the clause when they purchased the NutriBars.
Therefore, I believe that the Court of Appeal should uphold the decision of the trial judge. The advertisement in the posters was an offer that could not be revoked once performance had begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract. As a result, NutriBar Ltd is liable to Arinda and Namara for the damages that they suffered.
In this case, the advertisement in the posters stated that NutriBar Ltd would "pay £1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift." This statement does not clearly indicate that NutriBar Ltd was making an offer to enter into a contract. Instead, it could be interpreted as NutriBar Ltd simply inviting people to try their product and see if it worked for them.
The second point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. An exemption clause is a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one of the parties to the contract. In this case, the exemption clause stated that NutriBar Ltd was not liable for any damages that were caused by the use of their product.
In order for an exemption clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract. This means that the parties to the contract must have agreed to the clause, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, there is no evidence that Arinda and Namara agreed to the exemption clause. They did not sign any contract with NutriBar Ltd, and there is no evidence that they were aware of the clause when they purchased the NutriBars.
Therefore, I believe that the Court of Appeal should uphold the decision of the trial judge. The advertisement in the posters was an offer that could not be revoked once performance had begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract. As a result, NutriBar Ltd is liable to Arinda and Namara for the damages that they suffered.
Original post by Syed100
The first point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the advertisement in the posters was an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is a statement that is made by a party to another party, which indicates that the party is willing to enter into negotiations with the other party, but does not itself create a binding contract.
In this case, the advertisement in the posters stated that NutriBar Ltd would "pay £1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift." This statement does not clearly indicate that NutriBar Ltd was making an offer to enter into a contract. Instead, it could be interpreted as NutriBar Ltd simply inviting people to try their product and see if it worked for them.
The second point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. An exemption clause is a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one of the parties to the contract. In this case, the exemption clause stated that NutriBar Ltd was not liable for any damages that were caused by the use of their product.
In order for an exemption clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract. This means that the parties to the contract must have agreed to the clause, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, there is no evidence that Arinda and Namara agreed to the exemption clause. They did not sign any contract with NutriBar Ltd, and there is no evidence that they were aware of the clause when they purchased the NutriBars.
Therefore, I believe that the Court of Appeal should uphold the decision of the trial judge. The advertisement in the posters was an offer that could not be revoked once performance had begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract. As a result, NutriBar Ltd is liable to Arinda and Namara for the damages that they suffered.
In this case, the advertisement in the posters stated that NutriBar Ltd would "pay £1000 to anyone who bought and ate a 'NutriBar' every day for at least two weeks and was still exhausted when working a normal 12-hour work shift." This statement does not clearly indicate that NutriBar Ltd was making an offer to enter into a contract. Instead, it could be interpreted as NutriBar Ltd simply inviting people to try their product and see if it worked for them.
The second point that NutriBar Ltd is appealing is whether the exemption clause had been incorporated into the contract. An exemption clause is a clause in a contract that excludes or limits the liability of one of the parties to the contract. In this case, the exemption clause stated that NutriBar Ltd was not liable for any damages that were caused by the use of their product.
In order for an exemption clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract. This means that the parties to the contract must have agreed to the clause, either expressly or impliedly. In this case, there is no evidence that Arinda and Namara agreed to the exemption clause. They did not sign any contract with NutriBar Ltd, and there is no evidence that they were aware of the clause when they purchased the NutriBars.
Therefore, I believe that the Court of Appeal should uphold the decision of the trial judge. The advertisement in the posters was an offer that could not be revoked once performance had begun. The exemption clause had not been incorporated into the contract. As a result, NutriBar Ltd is liable to Arinda and Namara for the damages that they suffered.
You have to establish that it was an offer. That's the whole point.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Journey to being a barrister
- Contract Law
- Further Steps for the Bar
- do remarks go up usually
- Aqa drama gcse (the empress)
- Mitigating circumstances
- Sqlite3 / Bash Help
- what is law/english lit like at uni?
- med schol interview
- Had the worst interview ever
- is Nottingham a respected Uni for MC firms
- How does A level drama differ from GCSE drama
- Have you done script writing? What are your tips?
- Video Submission Advice
- Career
- First year looking for advice
- Should I participate in this international moot again? (HSF Competition Law Moot)
- Should healthcare workers get paid more than footballers, according to teenagers?
- Mathematics Grade Appeal
- Academic/career profile good enough for a BPTC Scholarship from an Inn?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
