The University of Law

GDL Mooting Competition 2017

Round One

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(CIVIL DIVISION)

SLADE ANTIQUES LTD

Appellant
- and

NORMAN FLETCHER
Respondent

Norman Fletcher went into an antiques shop at about 12 noon on 1st

March 2014. Whilst he was browsing, Norman saw a Chinese Urn which
he decided to buy for his wife as a birthday present.

Norman spoke with Leonard Godper, the co-owner of the shop (Slade
Antiques Ltd). Leonard told Norman that the Urn was for sale but that he
would want 10,000 for it. Norman told Leonard that he would only be
willing to pay 9,000 for it. Leonard thought about this for a moment and
then asked Norman if he would allow him to consult with his co-Director
before he made a decision.

The two men swapped contact details, including e-mail addresses, by

swapping business cards and parted. As Norman left the shop, Leonard
called after him to say that he should only use his mobile number as he
might not be at the site of the landline number on his card due to that
being his home number.

At 4pm that afternoon, Norman left an answer phone message on

Leonards landline telling him that he had thought further about his offer
and felt that the urn was not, after all, even worth 9,000 and so he
wished to revoke his offer.
Before leaving the shop at 5:30pm, Leonard sent an e-mail to Norman
saying that he had consulted with his co-Director, Bunny Warren and that
he would accept the offer of 9,000.

Almost immediately, Norman sent an e-mail to Leonard telling him that

he had already revoked his offer.

Slade Antiques Ltd brought a claim against Norman Fletcher claiming

that he had made an offer to purchase the urn for 9,000 which had been
accepted. Normans defence was that the offer had been properly
revoked prior to acceptance.

At first instance, His Honour Judge McKay sitting at West London County
Court dismissed the claim, finding that the telephone call did constitute a
valid withdrawal of the offer as it was communicated through one of the
channels that had been provided by Leonard Godper as enabling
communication to be made. The Judge also held that, in any event, as the
offer had not been accepted within normal business hours, Leonard
Godper would have been aware of the withdrawal prior to the following
working day.

Slade Antiques Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following
two grounds:

1. The Judge was plainly wrong in determining that the telephone call
constituted a valid withdrawal of the offer given the comment that
Leonard Godper had made as Norman Fletcher left the shop.

2. The Judge was plainly wrong in determining that an e-mail sent at

5:30pm fell outside normal business hours in a way that therefore
validated an otherwise invalid withdrawal of an offer.