Grabbit and Runn Ltd

SLOT 1 (RESPONDENT/ GRABBIT AND RUNN LTD)

1. SELF-INTRODUCTION

My lord, as already been stated, my name is ____ and I appear as SENIOR COUNSEL for the RESPONDENT.

My learned co-counsel, ____will be the JUNIOR COUNSEL for the RESPONDENT

3. Statement of the Case

"This is a case about the proper and lawful use of police power to address the significant threats posed by drug trafficking in our city."

“This is a case about whether a commercial party can back out of a contract simply because it realised the bargain it struck was unfavourable.”

2. ROADMAP

This case is about the principle of contra proferentem and stare decisis, which counsel this crt to affirm its precedent in Hadley v Baxendale that states _____. This crt shd affirm the lower court dec and hold that construction of s 12 ucta________ by previous/lower crt is correct for two main reasons: consumer/rsbness

which English contract law case on the remoteness of damage principle

"This Court should find in favor of the appellant [or respondent] for two reasons...." You should then list your main arguments. For example, "...First, because this Court does not have jurisdiction; and Second, because customary international law is applicable in this case and is on the side of the appellant [or respondent]."

2. FACTS

If APPELLANT state the wrong facts:

Would Your Lordship find a brief summary of the facts of the instant case helpful?

The Ps entered into a ctt to re-design a website with a limitation cl by seller to limit any defective to only replacement cost. County crt held that Webfix clearly in breach of s4(2) SOGASA & that G&R is dealing as consumer thus the limitation cl cannot be relied on. Webfix are liable for 15k for the lost commission by G&R

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

My lords, if I can refer you to the skeleton argument for the RESPONDENT, you will see that there are two grounds of appeal in the instant case. They are:

(i) That the damage being claimed for was not too remote, as it falls inside of the ordinary Hadley v Baxendale principles

It is not construed as being damage of the type envisaged in Victoria Laundries v Newman, thus Grabbit and Runn has claim and the application of Clause 2 is material.

(ii) If the court finds in the alternative that the damage was foreseeable; i) on the true construction of s12 UCTA, Grabbit and