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The offer was not withdrawn prior to acceptance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Even if the advertisement was an offer, it was withdrawn prior to acceptance so there was no binding contract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:

  1. R v Renard (see earlier)
  2. Massinger v Wax (see p.105, Blackstone Book of Moots)
  3. 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

 

 

Back to top