MOOTING SHIELD SKELETON ARGUMENT

Contract Law- Mooting Shield Skeleton Argument

Abstract

In this paper we have devised a mooting shield skeleton argument as lawyer of respondent. This paper also discusses the references cases with respect to the case law for the given case study. Furthermore, the paper discusses the contract law and provides the relevant case studies. Mooting Shield Skeleton Argument

In The House of Lords

Between:

Richard (Appellant)

-AND-

Amazing.co.uk (Respondent)

It is very well established that for a valid contract both the parties are required to act freely. In substance, the organization “Amazing.co.uk” has sent an apology to the customer for price error for the product. Moreover, as per the policy of Amazing.co.uk present in the website, the contract is not confirmed until and unless the product is dispatched and the payment has been made. Hence, there was no contract existed. Therefore, the organization cancelled the order due to misstatement of price for the product ordered by Appellant. Even if the contract was existed, due to the statement of wrong price the defendant of unilateral mistake would have vitiated the contract. On one hand, the organization, amazing.co.uk, at any point did not make any deductions. In addition, the organization had made it clear in its policy that the sale of product would not be confirm until and unless the organization sent an email confirming that dispatch of the product. On the other hand, the appellant misunderstood the sale offered by amazing.co.uk on CDs and DVDs while purchasing the product. This misunderstanding led him to purchase the product on sale price.

The most significant development in the doctrine was the decision taken by House of Lord in the case Heilbut, Symons & Co. -v- Buckleton [1912], where the House of Lord agreed that the contract exist only after the agreement of both the parties. However in the case Richard vs. Amazing.co.uk the contract does not exist according to the policy of the organization, which says the contract is confirmed only after the confirmation email regarding dispatching the product. A statement is not evidently a term if it includes the person who makes the statement asking the other party to verify or check the policies, as where amazing.co.uk stated that the policies are sound for contract but Richard was required to read the terms and condition. As in the case Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80LL LR 286. In case, the statement is intended to prevent the other party from finding the defects and it succeeds in its intention then the court take it into consideration as term. Therefore, in case Schawel v Reade (1913) 2 IR 64, the seller of the horse stated that the buyer was required to look for the defects, the horse was perfectly alright and the house of lord considered that statement as term. Similarly in this case, the organization (respondent) asked Mr. Richard, the appellant, to check the terms for validating the contract therefore, it should be considered as a term of Amaizing.co.uk for the validation of ...