This is another opportunity for you to present your moot.


Thursday 7th December, 11-1pm, Mary Seacole Building, MH017b (Mock Court Room)


You can find the moot problem on the email sent out earlier on and here:

In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)


Appellant: Bob Devlin


Respondent: Simon Evans


Simon was looking for a new business venture, he decided to buy a vacant shop in his local town and open a new off licence shop. Simon decided to call his new off licence shop “Boozy Beverages.” As part of the shop opening and to promote “Boozy Beverages” to local residents, Simon decided to put an advertisement in the local paper stating that he will sell bottles of champagne at a discount price of £15, instead of the recommended retail price of £30. It also states that there are only 50 bottles of champagne available. The advertisement states that anyone wanting the champagne should contact Simon in person at the shop or email him at S.Evans@boozybeverages.co.uk. 


The advertisement appears in the local paper on Thursday. Bob, a local resident in the town, sees the advertisement at 3.30pm on the Friday afternoon and immediately sends an email to Simon ordering 5 bottles of the champagne. The email is received on Simon’s computer at 5.30pm on Friday. 


On Friday evening Simon realises that the discount was far too generous as he is not making any money on the champagne and people are coming to the shop and only buying the champagne and not buying any other alcoholic drinks as he had hoped. Simon decides to phone the local paper and ask them to put a notice in the paper the next day informing people that the discount price on the champagne is no longer available. The Saturday paper is published at 9.00am on Saturday morning and the paper is delivered to Bob at 10.30am. Simon reads Bobs email at 10.45am on Saturday morning, he replies to the email refusing to sell him the champagne, explaining that the discount is no longer available. Bob was very annoyed to receive the reply and sued Simon for breach of contract. At first instance the judge found for Simon on the following basis: 


· There was no contract between Simon and Bob since the advertisement in the paper was not an offer but an invitation to treat. 

· Even if the advertisement amounted to an offer, Simon validly revoked the offer.