mooting training – non-uk students harmish mehta
TRANSCRIPT
Mooting Training – Non-UK Students
Harmish Mehta
Strategy
1) Today2) Introduction
1) Guide2) LSESU Law Society Mooting Training
Seminar, 16th October, 12-1pm, Sheikh Zayed Theatre
3) Training4) Practice Moots5) Competitions
Introduction
• Format
• Questions
• Mooting Guide
• Laptops
• Slides (www.lsesubarsociety.co.uk/resources)
What is mooting?
SeniorAppellant
JuniorAppellant
SeniorRespondent
Junior Respondent
Judge
ProblemDrew and Lucy were long standing acquaintances who regularly had businessdealings with one another. On 1st November, Drew, from his home address inNorthampton, wrote to Lucy at her address in Bristol, offering to sell her hiscustomised Renault Clio motor car, (which she has long admired), for £7,000, theoffer to remain open until 5th November. On receiving the offer on 2nd November,Lucy left Bristol on a business trip to Liverpool. On the 2nd November Drew sold thecar to Kelly and posted to Lucy a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Lucy’sBristol address on 3rd November. On 4th November, Lucy posted an acceptance ofthe offer from Liverpool, addressed to Drew at his business address, (which was theaddress from which Drew usually conducted dealings with Lucy) in Coventry. It wasdelivered there on 5th November but as Drew was absent from his office on that day,it wasn’t read by him until 6th November. On 7th November Lucy returned home andread the letter of revocation.Lucy claimed that a contract had been formed between herself and Drew, in that shehad accepted the offer either on 4th November through the application of the postalrule, or on the 5th November when the letter was delivered to Drew’s place ofbusiness. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before Drew’s letter ofrevocation was communicated to her.
ProblemHeld by Nonsuch J.:1. that the postal rule did not operate to form a contract on 4th November, sincethe acceptance was posted to the wrong address. In such a case, the postal rulebecomes displaced and the acceptance does not take place until the letter ofacceptance is received and read, (i.e. on 6th November) by which time theoffer had lapsed. The court accepted the U.S.case of Eliason v. Henshaw 4Wheat 225, as being a correct application of principle.2. in any case, the offer had been revoked before Lucy’s letter of acceptance hadbeen posted. Although the rule is that an offer is not revoked until therevocation is communicated to the offeree, in this case ‘communicated’ meantthat the offeree should be given a reasonable time to read the letter ofrevocation, once it had been delivered to the place from which the offer hadbeen made and at which the offeree was reasonably supposed to be present.This, at the latest, was at the close of business on 3rd November.Lucy is appealing against both findings.
Where is the law?
Acts of Parliament
Court Judgements
www.legislation.gov.ukWestlaw
LexisNexis
Textbooks
Court System
Court System - Simplified
Supreme Court
Court of Appeal
High Court
County Court
Supreme Court
Court of Appeal
High Court
Crown Court
Magistrate’s Court
Civil Criminal
Key differences
• Constitutional law – unwritten constitution
• Role of the judge to create law
• Judgements
• Tension
• Statutory interpretation
Statutory Interpretation
• Strict interpretation – Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg; Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
• Golden Rule – Adler v George• Mischief Rule – Pepper v Hart; Clinton• Purposive Approach – Royal College of Nursing
v DHSS• Human Rights Act s3 – Ghaidan v Mendoza; R v
A• Disobedience? - Anisminic
What’s next
• Guide• Training• Practice• Competitions• Non-Law competition?• [email protected]• [email protected]• 07799726251