Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
BETWEEN
and
Sidebottom (Respondent)
SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE JUNIOR APPELLANT
JASLEEN GILL
INTRODUCTION
2. The Junior Appellant will be dealing with the second ground of appeal by which it
is claimed that if indeed an offer, the advertisement amounted to a unilateral offer
and had not been accepted by Sidebottom before the offer was revoked by
Saturday’s advertisement.
First Submission
a) As per the defining character of unilateral offers, there was a one-sided promise
by Wonderstones Ltd. If complied with according to the terms of the offer, this
would result in a binding unilateral contract. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1)
a) The revocation of a unilateral offer can be made “before any rights had accrued
under it” so long as it is “withdrawn through the same channel in which it was
made” (Shuey v United States (1875) 92 US 73, Article 2.202 of the Principles
of European Contract law) . The offer was made in an advertisement in the local
newspaper on a Friday and was withdrawn the subsequent day via the same local
newspaper
5. It is submitted that according to the terms of the offer, acceptance of the offer
would commence when the item is brought to the till and paid for, and not when
one joins the queue
III. There would be an implication that until the first person in the
queue is entirely satisfied with his or her purchase and has concluded a
contract (or explicitly refused to conclude one), no one else can conclude a
contract since ‘first come first serve’ would apply from the queue itself.
For the reasons set above, it is accordingly submitted that the court should allow the
appeal.