A Speech for Moot as a Junior Respondent
Introduction
Your Lordship, as a junior respondent I appear in your court representing the appellant to make my arguments with regard to Chester County Court vs. Mr. Lane Price. My arguments follow the submissions made by the Senior Appellant, Junior Appellant, and Senior Respondent for the appellant.
The case before this court relates to the grounds of a valid offer and invitation to treat and the creation of a valid agreement. Your Lordship, do you find a brief of the facts related to the case helpful? If there are no questions from your Lordship related to the facts, I thus proceed to make my submissions.
My Lord, from the argument made by the appellant, there are four ground of appeal that have been provided. I will deal with the first and the third grounds. The two grounds: (1) Mr. Price’s shop window display amounted to a unilateral offer; and (2) In the preferred alternative, Mr. Draper’s letter offering £1500 amounted to a counter---offer, accepted by Mr. Price before it was revoked by Mr. Draper, creating a valid agreement. The area to be addressed by the senior counsel is the second ground on Mr. Draper’s oral statement that he would pay £1000 amounted to an acceptance of this offer, creating a valid agreement. The junior counsel is to address the fourth ground on that neither party was operating under a mistake.
Facts
My lord, the following are the facts related to this case;
- In May 2015, Lane Price displayed one of the discovered artworks titled ‘It’s Roasted’ in the window of his shop with an attached sign that read: Original Lucky Strike Ad --- For sale at the special offer price of £1,000. The offer stays open until the end of May.
- Don Draper saw the advert on 21 May 2015 and made an offer of £1000. However, Price rejected the offer and Price gave a counter offer of £1,500 for the ad. The letter arrived 1 June 2015, and one the same day, Mr. Price telephoned Mr. Draper and left a message on his answering machine and accepted his offer.
- However, Draper suddenly changed his mind after establishing that the famous Lucky Strike slogan was ‘It’s Toasted’ and not ‘It’s Roasted’, and faxed a letter to Mr Price’s shop stating that his offer was withdrawn. But, failure of the fax implied that the rejection of the offer was not realized.
- Expert evidence has established that the painting is an alternative submission prepared by a different agency than the one that created ‘It’s Toasted’ and its worth at £1050.
Argument
My Lord, before I begin on the first submission related to the first ground, I hereby make references to the applicable matter.
In general, the Common Law “assumes that statements made in advertisements are not enforceable because there is no intention to be legally bound” (Ebers, Janssen, and Meyer 258). This is because when an advertisement is made it is assumed to invite potential buyers or consumers to purchase the product advertised. For an intention to be legally binding there must be an agreement between the parties involved. An exception to the Common Law on ads statements is on the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 2 QB 256 case (O'Donovan 71). From this advert, everybody who made use of the smoke ball was to be rewarded in case they contracted influenza.The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was eligible to the reward because the advertisements created an offer of a unilateral contract that was achieved when she accepted the performing the act required (Poole 20; Reid, and Zimmerman 275). The Court further held that the advert created an intention to develop legal relations, which made it legally binding and treated as offer.
In Williams vs. Carwarine [1833] an advert is accepted as an offer. Monaghan pointed out that “so long as the offer is sufficiently clear and precise, and is capable of being accepted, then the advert will amount to an offer”. With reference to the arguments, then the appellant made a unilateral offer by displaying the advert on the window. An offer is different from an invitation to treat because while the latter only invites the other party to make an offer, the former make an offer with the intent to be binding (Ebers, Janssen, and Meyer 258). The statement “Original Lucky Strike Ad --- For sale at the special offer price of £1,000. The offer stays open until the end of May” demonstrated the intent to make an offer which was unilateral and it was therefore an invitation to treat as pointed out by HHJ Stirling.
My Lord, let me present my submission with regard to the third ground. Briefly, a counter offer is a response to an offer and it is used to make an offer on other terms. When a counter offer is made, then the original offer becomes void (Stone, 39). With reference to the case, Mr. Draper’s letter offered £1500 amounted to a counter offer the initial offer of £1000, which he later provoked. This can be illustrated under the Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 where Lord Langdale MR held that when a counter offer is made, then the original offer is destroyed and it is no longer open for acceptance. The implication is that the counter offer made forms a valid agreement between the defendant and the appellant. When Draper made the counter offer, then the original offer become invalid, while the counter offer which made become valid.
There was no agreed means of communication between the defendant and the appellant. Nonetheless, in Morris Associates v Voyce, 2003 the Judge ruled that the offeror has the power renounce the need of communication with regard to acceptance. When there is a conduct, then acceptance of offer is realized. When the defendant sent the fax, there was complete intention of offer acceptance. The three rules that relate to acceptance of the offer are communication, agreement, and matching terms of acceptance and offer (Stone, 39). When the post was sent via a letter, then this was a reasonable and appropriate means of communication. The letter was clear as it stated the intention of giving £1500 for the ad. Moreover, the message was received before end of May, which implies that the set timeframe for the offer had not elapsed. In Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co the revocation was made later after it was accepted. The court held a revocation becomes ineffective when the offer has already been received and accepted prior to revocation receipt. With this regard, the revocation made by the defendant was late, and therefore ineffective and invalid.
Conclusion
From the case, the issues addressed are based on unilateral offer and creation of valid agreement. It is established that the window display amounted to a unilateral offer and it is legally binding because an intention to accept was made. On the second issue, the counter offer replaced the original offer which made it a valid agreement. Moreover, when the revocation was made, the defendant had already accepted the offer made. For the aforementioned reasons, I humbly request this Court to find in favor of the appellant (Mr. Price) and his appeal be affected with regard to this case.
My Lord, do you have any further questions? If there are no further questions, my Lord, my Learned Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel will now address the second and fourth grounds of appeal.
Works Cited
Books
Ebers, Martin, Andre Janssen, and Olaf Meyer. European Perspectives on Producers' Liability: Direct Producers' Liability for Non-Conformity and the Sellers' Right of Redress. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers, 2009. Print.
Monagfhan, Chris. Beginning Business Law. London. Routledge, 2015. Print.
Poole, Jill. Casebook on Contract Law. New York Routledge, 2016. Print.
O'Donovan, James. Lender Liability. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005. Print.
Reid, Kenneth G. C, and Reinhard Zimmerman. A History of Private Law in Scotland: Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Stone, Richard. The Modern Law of Contract. London. Psychology Press, 2005. Print.
Cases
Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 2 QB 256.
Day Morris Associates v Voyce [2003] EWCA Civ 189
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division.
Williams v Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44
