Case Bundle Mindy Liew (Lead Appellant) Index Section A: Items 1. Problem Question 2 3. Table of Authorities Section B: Case Authorities 4. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 5 - 17 ~ ~ 2. Skeleton Arguments 3 4 5. Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd [1996] CLC 451 18 - 35 6. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 36 - 56 1
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. The advertisement states that anyone wanting the shortbread should contact Viv in person at the shop or E-mail her at Viv@villageshop.co.uk. 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. The Judge at 1st instance ruled in Viv's favour holding that there was no contract and even if there had been, the offer was successfully withdrawn before acceptance, applying the principle in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327. Eric now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds: (A) There was a contract between Viv and Eric since the notice in the paper was an offer and not an invitation to treat. (B) This offer was not successfully withdrawn before the acceptance by Eric. 2
In the Court of Appeal Eric Pollard (Appellant) v Viv Windsor (Respondent) Skeleton Argument: Mindy Liew (Lead Appellant) Ground for appeal: A contract was in place between the parties as the advertisement constituted an offer and not an invitation to treat. Submission 1: The advertisement was an "offer" with intention to create legal relations. a) As per Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, Ms Windsor's news advertisement could be reasonably regarded as a unilateral "offer". b) The news advertisement was clear and