Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Contract law incorporation notice UCTA 1977 Essay

Contract law incorporation notice UCTA 1977 - Essay Example Joseph, the Managing Director of Juicy Drinks Limited, visits the small office of MML and looks at some brochures of the marquees, agrees to hire one and is given a booking slip. MML demand half the cost of the hire which Joseph duly pays. The 'booking slip' is a small piece of flimsy pink paper. On its face it has the name, address and logo of MML and Juicy Drinks Limited's name together with the date of hire on 6 July 11.00 am until 6pm. There are no clauses on the face of the booking slip, however it ushers for the reader to refer to the reverse side of the paper for the clauses. On the back of the booking slip there are many clauses in small print. One of those clauses stated that MML will not be liable for any faults in the marquee or for any loss caused by bad weather that prevents the marquee being raised. Another clause states that the marquee must be vacated by 7pm on the day of hire. Unfortunately, on 6 July there is a horrendous thunderstorm and the marquee cannot be raised until 3pm on that given date. Meanwhile Joseph's potential customers have had no shelter from the torrential rain nor any refreshment since 11 am. They tell Joseph that they will never buy from him and do not sign the lucrative sales contract. ... To drown their sorrows Joseph and his team enter the marquee eventually at 3 pm and don't leave until 9 pm. Juicy Drinks refuse to pay for the remainder of the hire charge and sued MML in the High Court for breach of contract with losses to include loss of the valuable sales contract with their potential customers. Witter J found (i) The clause that MML were not liable for any loss had not been incorporated in the contract because insufficient notice had been given (Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] applied). (ii) In any event, even if incorporated, the clause was not, despite its wording, a condition of the contract as it was unreasonable in the circumstances under The Unfair Contract Terms Act. 1977. Witter J therefore awarded Juicy Drinks Limited damages for breach of contract including loss of profit from the new customer. MML has decided to appeal against this decision to the Moot Court of Appeal. Acting as counsel for the appellant MML prepare a skeleton argument for your client dealing with both of these points. Word Limit 1,500. IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE Case No: 12/03/07 IN THE MOOT COURT OF APPEAL Magnificent Marquees Appellant V IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE Case No: 12/03/07 IN THE MOOT COURT OF APPEAL Magnificent Marquees Appellant V Juicy Drinks Limited Respondent Skeleton Argument of Counsel for the Appellant Juicy Drinks Limited Respondent Skeleton Argument of Counsel for the Appellant 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Witter J in the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division. Background: 2. The Appellant is a hirer of marquees and has been in business for the past twelve years.

No comments:

Post a Comment