MOOT PROBLEM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(CIVIL DIVISION)

BRENDA JONES …APPELLANT

-v-

GREAT MART BHD …RESPONDENT

Great Mart Bhd (“Great Mart”) is a popular self service supermarket. A Poster in the window of
Great Mart stated as follows:-

“Free branded Kettle to any shopper purchasing a minimum of £300 worth of goods in this
store this week”

Brenda Jones visited the supermarket during the relevant week and she saw the poster in the
window of Great Mart. She was excited about what the poster stated and she went into the
supermarket. Since Brenda Jones was interested to obtain the branded kettle she placed £300
worth of goods in her shopping trolley and went to the cashier counter intending to make payment
for the goods in her trolley and also to collect the free branded kettle as stated on the Poster in
the window.

The check out operator recorded all the goods from Brenda Jones’s trolley on the computerized
till and requested Brenda Jones to make payment of the sum of £300. Before making payment
Brenda Jones wanted to ensure that she would be given the free banded and she requested for
the free branded kettle. In response the check out operator informed Brenda Jones that there was
no more stock of the branded kettle. However, a free pan could be given to her instead.

Brenda Jones refused to accept the pan in place of the branded kettle. Since the branded kettle
was no longer available Brenda Jones was no longer interested to purchase goods worth £300
and she decided to return the goods and she started to replace the goods back on the shelves in
the supermarket.

1
The check out operator called the Manager and the Manager refused to allow Brenda Jones to
return the goods and to replace them on the shelves. The Manager claimed that Brenda Jones
had already purchased the goods and was liable to make payment of the sum of £300 for the
goods that she had placed in the trolley and had been recorded by the check out operator on the
computerized till.

Brenda Jones refused to make payment and left the supermarket without the goods.

Thereafter Great Mart commenced proceedings against Brenda Jones claiming that Brenda
Jones had breached the contract of sale and Great Mart claimed for the loss of profit, in the sum
of £300.

In the proceedings Brenda Jones counterclaimed against Great Mart for the branded kettle or the
value of the branded kettle and alternatively for damages for misrepresentation by Great Mart.
Justice Wentworth from the Court of first instance, allowed Great Mart’s claim on the basis that
there was a legally binding contract when the goods were recorded on the computerized till. The
Judge held that the poster in the window of Great Mart was merely an advertising puff and that, in
any case, there was no intention on the part of Great Mart to create legal relations in respect of
the branded Kettle. Further, that Great Mart did not misrepresent to Brenda Jones.

Brenda Jones now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:-

● In respect of Great Mart’s claim against Brenda Jones:-

(a) There was no contract for the goods worth £300 by registering the prices on the
computerized till since no payment had been made.

● In respect of Brenda Jones’s Counterclaim against Great Mart:-

(b) That, if the Court were to hold that there was a contract for £300 worth of goods,
than there was an offer by Great Mart to give a branded kettle and that the offer
had been accepted by Brenda Jones.

(c) Alternatively, Great Mart had misrepresented and was entitled to damages.

2
If it pleases your Lordship/Ladyship, I am Yau Jun Ting, Counsel for Brenda Jones, the Appellant in this case. I am
assisted by my co counsel Tham Zhi Hong. “Appearing for the Respondens are ……………. And ……………..”

This is the hearing of the appeal against the decision Justice Wentworth in the court of first instance……….. (ask if the
judge wants a summary of facts)
(The case is between Brenda Jones and Great Mart where upon seeing Great Mart’s poster  that states that any shopper
to purchase a minimum of £300 worth of goods will receive a free branded kettle, Brenda Jones had gathered £300
worth of goods to exchange for the kettle. The check out operator had recorded the goods on the computerized till but
when Brenda requested fro the kettle, the check out operator offered to give a free pan instead due to lack of stock.
Brenda Jones refused to pay and Great Mart commenced proceedings claiming that Brenda Jones had breached the
contract of sale. In the Court of first instance, it was held that Brenda was not misrepresented by Great Mart. )
It is the submission of the Appelant that 1) there was no contract for the goods worth £300 by registering the prices on
the computerized till since no payment had been made.
 
Consumer Act 2015

5 (1)A contract is a sales contract if under it—

(a)the trader transfers or agrees to transfer ownership of goods to the consumer, and

(b)the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.

In this case, it is clear that the transaction here is a contract of sale where the “goods” is the £300 worth of goods, the
trader as defined in Section 2(2) is respondent and the “consumer” is the appellant

(2)A contract is a sales contract (whether or not it would be one under subsection (1)) if under the contract—

(a)goods are to be manufactured or produced and the trader agrees to supply them to the consumer,

(b)on being supplied, the goods will be owned by the consumer, and

(c)the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.

Thus, unless there was a transfer of goods from the seller to buyer, there is no contract of sale, but merely an agreement
to sell.  In this scenario, although goods were handed to her, which fulfills (a) there was no transfer of property from
the seller to buyer as firstly, the appellant had replace the goods back on the shelves,showing that she had no ownership
of these goods and secondly, the goods were handed to her without her consent, where she had already refused the
goods and showed that she had no intention to purchase the goods.

This is further reinforced in 

S17(1) Sales of Goods Act 1979, which provides for passing of property and states that where there is a contract
for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the
parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.

As mentioned, at the point where property was passed to Brenda Jones, she did not  intend for it to be done so. So (b)
was not fulfilled and  there was no contract of sale formed at any point.

Furthermore, the consumer must pay or agree to pay the price as stated in Section 5(2)(c). In this scenario, although
Great Mart had keyed in the price into the computerised till, Brenda Jones did not make any payment and even
expressed her refusal to pay. So, there is no contract of sale formed between the two parties. 

Unless I can be of further assistance to Your Lordship that concludes my submissions on the first point of the Appeal
where we submit that there was no contract formed between the parties.. My learned co-counsel will now address your
lordship on the second ground of appeal in that if there was a contract formed, the respondent has made an
misrepresentation (In respect of Great Mart’s claim against Brenda Jones:-)