The loosing side
Sussex Law School
First Year Mooting Competition 2006-07
Sponsored by Mayo & Perkins
MOOT PROBLEM
Salisbury’s Plc v Yasmeen Khan
In the Court of Appeal
A poster in the window of Salisbury’s self-service supermarket stated:
Free Samesong 512MB MP3 player to any shopper purchasing a minimum of £150 worth of goods in this store this week.
During the relevant week, Yasmeen Khan visited the store and placed £160 worth of goods in a shopping trolley and went to the check-out. The check-out operator recorded all the purchases on the computerised till and asked Yasmeen for £160. When Yasmeen asked for the MP3 player she was told by the operator that the store had run out of them, but that she could have a gift set of luxury bath and hand towels instead. Yasmeen refused to accept the towel set and also refused to pay for the £160 worth of goods. She started to replace those goods on the shelves. The manager was called and he refused to allow the goods to be replaced, claiming that Yasmeen had already purchased the goods and was liable to pay for them. Yasmeen refused to pay and left the store without the goods.
Salisbury’s brought a claim against Yasmeen asserting that Yasmeen was in breach of a contract of sale and claimed for the lost profit on the £160 worth of goods.
Yasmeen counterclaimed for the value of the MP3 Player.
Yasmeen now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
(a) In respect of Salisbury’s claim, that there was no contract for the £160 worth of goods since no payment had been made.
(b) In respect of her counterclaim, that, in the alternative, if the court were to hold that there was a contract for £160 worth of goods, there was an offer of a MP3 Player, and that offer had been accepted.
This problem is taken from Snape, J & Watt, G (2004) How to Moot: a Student Guide to Mooting, Oxford, Oxford University Press. It has been altered slightly.
First Year Mooting Competition 2006-07
Sponsored by Mayo & Perkins
MOOT PROBLEM
Salisbury’s Plc v Yasmeen Khan
In the Court of Appeal
A poster in the window of Salisbury’s self-service supermarket stated:
Free Samesong 512MB MP3 player to any shopper purchasing a minimum of £150 worth of goods in this store this week.
During the relevant week, Yasmeen Khan visited the store and placed £160 worth of goods in a shopping trolley and went to the check-out. The check-out operator recorded all the purchases on the computerised till and asked Yasmeen for £160. When Yasmeen asked for the MP3 player she was told by the operator that the store had run out of them, but that she could have a gift set of luxury bath and hand towels instead. Yasmeen refused to accept the towel set and also refused to pay for the £160 worth of goods. She started to replace those goods on the shelves. The manager was called and he refused to allow the goods to be replaced, claiming that Yasmeen had already purchased the goods and was liable to pay for them. Yasmeen refused to pay and left the store without the goods.
Salisbury’s brought a claim against Yasmeen asserting that Yasmeen was in breach of a contract of sale and claimed for the lost profit on the £160 worth of goods.
Yasmeen counterclaimed for the value of the MP3 Player.
Yasmeen now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
(a) In respect of Salisbury’s claim, that there was no contract for the £160 worth of goods since no payment had been made.
(b) In respect of her counterclaim, that, in the alternative, if the court were to hold that there was a contract for £160 worth of goods, there was an offer of a MP3 Player, and that offer had been accepted.
This problem is taken from Snape, J & Watt, G (2004) How to Moot: a Student Guide to Mooting, Oxford, Oxford University Press. It has been altered slightly.
posted by Tiny Dancer at 00:23
0 comments
