IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN Wonderstores Ltd (Appellant) and Sidebottom (Respondent)

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE JUNIOR APPELLANT JASLEEN GILL INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal against the findings of the local county court, which dismissed the claim of the Appellant (Wonderstores) against the Respondent (Sidebottom) with regards to the decision that the advertisement placed in the newspaper amounted to a unilateral offer, acceptance of which could begun to be performed by queuing outside the store. Wonderstores asks the court to allow the appeal on the basis that the county courts decision was incorrect and that its reasoning cannot be sustained. 2. The Junior Appellant will be dealing with the second ground of appeal by which it is claimed that if indeed an offer, the advertisement amounted to a unilateral offer and had not been accepted by Sidebottom before the offer was revoked by Saturdays advertisement.

JUNIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: MISS JASLEEN GILL First Submission 3. It is submitted that if the advertisement is to be viewed as an offer, the terms of the offer amount to a unilateral offer and not a bilateral offer a) As per the defining character of unilateral offers, there was a one-sided promise by Wonderstones Ltd. If complied with according to the terms of the offer, this would result in a binding unilateral contract. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1)

4. It is submitted that the unilateral offer was effectively revoked by appropriate means on Saturday a) The revocation of a unilateral offer can be made before any rights had accrued under it so long as it is withdrawn through the same channel in which it was made (Shuey v United States (1875) 92 US 73, Article 2.202 of the Principles of European Contract law) . The offer was made in an advertisement in the local newspaper on a Friday and was withdrawn the subsequent day via the same local newspaper 5. It is submitted that according to the terms of the offer, acceptance of the offer would commence when the item is brought to the till and paid for, and not when one joins the queue a) It is submitted that based on the terms of the contract, it would be highly impractical and self-defeating to insist that queuing is a condition to acceptance that must be fulfilled I. Not fulfilling the queuing requirement if indeed there is no queue cannot be expected to bar customers from concluding a contract II. It would be impractical to understand queuing as beginning to perform the contract as there would then be an obligation to serve every single person in the queue and enable purchase of the advertised item they wish to purchase, as an offer cannot be revoked when already embarked on III. There would be an implication that until the first person in the queue is entirely satisfied with his or her purchase and has concluded a contract (or explicitly refused to conclude one), no one else can conclude a contract since first come first serve would apply from the queue itself. b) It is submitted that queuing is not a necessary condition according to the terms of the offer For the reasons set above, it is accordingly submitted that the court should allow the appeal.