Answers to self-test questions (19.1.6)

Can you identify the argument for each of the parties?

Answers to self-test questions 19.1.6: Can you identify the argument for each of the parties?

It is essential to mooting success that you can identify which ‘way round’ the arguments go—in other words, what are the appellant and respondent respectively arguing?

Question 1: Have a look at Montes v Watson (Figure 19.1). Senior counsel for the appellant is arguing that the advertisement is an offer but what are the other parties arguing?

Suggested Answer: Montes v Watson

Party	Argument
Senior counsel for the appellant	The advertisement is an offer
Junior counsel for the appellant	The offer was not withdrawn prior to acceptance
Senior counsel for the respondent	The advertisement was an invitation to treat
Junior counsel for the respondent	Even if the advertisement was an offer, it was withdrawn prior to acceptance so there was no binding contract

Make sure that you can also identify the argument for each of the mooters in a couple of the other sample moot problems and check your conclusions with the answers.

Sample moots list:

R v Renard (see earlier)
Massinger v Wax (see p.105, Blackstone Book of Moots)
ex parte Friends of Dingley Dell (see p.152, Blackstone Book of Moots)

Suggested Answer: R v Renard

Party	Argument
Senior counsel for the appellant	A fox is property
Junior counsel for the appellant	Lawful excuse is based on subjective belief
Senior counsel for the respondent	A fox is not property
Junior counsel for the respondent	There is an objective element to lawful excuse

Suggested Answer: Massinger v Wax

Party	Argument
Senior counsel for the appellant	The clause on the form was not incorporated into the contract
Junior counsel for the appellant	Even if the clause were incorporated into the contract, it was not reasonable within the meaning of UCTA
Senior counsel for the respondent	The clause was incorporated into the contract
Junior counsel for the respondent	The clause satisfied the reasonableness requirements of UCTA and was valid

Suggested Answer: R v Secretary of State ex parte Dingley Dell

Party	Argument
Senior counsel for the appellant	The interest group had sufficient interest in the decision hence had standing to mount a challenge
Junior counsel for the appellant	The interest group had a legitimate expectation that the regulations would not be altered
Senior counsel for the respondent	The interest group did not have standing to challenge the decision
Junior counsel for the respondent	The interest group lacked any basis upon which to claim a legitimate expectation that the regulations would not be altered