CONTRACT LAW MOOTING - MOOT PROFORMA

IN THE SUPREME COURT

BETWEEN

MegaGames Appellant

-And-

Premier Bank Respondent

SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

Name:
Sharjeel Anwar
Student Number:
12691869
Moot judge:
Nnenne Uzoigwe

Ground of appeal:

That Exemplar J had erred in applying the principle in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls
(Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1. The benefits obtained by the part-payment of a debt
should be treated the same as those benefits obtained under a contract for the provision
of goods and/or services.

Submission:

 In Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls, the court established a precedent that the practical benefit
obtained by a party under a contract, such as timely completion of a project, can constitute valid
consideration for a promise of additional payment. This principle applies directly to the present
case, where MegaGames, by virtue of the part-payment, conferred a practical benefit upon
Premier Bank by ensuring the project's continuation.

 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd highlights the importance of adaptable
agreements during challenging circumstances. In this case, amidst World War II, a reduced rent
agreement was made due to limited tenant occupancy caused by wartime conditions. The court
held the reduced rent agreement binding even after wartime conditions ceased, emphasizing
the necessity of flexibility in contractual arrangements.

 Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board reinforces the significance of promises made
before employment becoming contractual terms. The court upheld the binding nature of an
assurance regarding pension entitlements, highlighting the importance of transparency and
fairness in employment contracts. This case underscores the principle that assurances made
before employment can be legally binding, ensuring security and stability for employees.
Authorities:

1. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

2. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
3. Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294