COURT OF APPEAL BADEN MSUKU

BETWEEN:
Supaprint Plc
Appellant
-v–

Witherton Ltd1
Respondent

SKELETON ARGUMENT – JUNIOR RESPONDENT

Submissions:

1. The advanced payment of £50,000 was a mere agreement and not a contractual
stipulation for securing Supaprints’ commitments over their other contracts.
a. Claim of the £30,000 lost by Supaprint could not be binding.on the
contract
b. ‘it was not an implied term of the contract that shipment or
transportation should be made via the Suez Canal’ made by board of
appeal
c.
i. Case – Tsakiroglou v Noble Thorl [1962] AC 93
2. In the Law reform Act of 1943 Section 1 subsection 2 states that the money paid
before the frustrating event is recoverable. This is indicated in the Gamerco v
ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1226
S
Authorities:
Tsakiroglou v Noble Thorl [1962] AC 93
Gamerco v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1226