In the Court of Appeal Christopher v Tariq Monsieur by rolo14


									                            In the Court of Appeal

Christopher v Tariq

Monsieur Jean Christpher provides catering for outside events. He has been
awarded the contract to cater for a Muslim festival gathering in Markeaton
Park in Derby. The contract price is based on an advertisement he has seen in
his local newspaper for the opening of a new wholesale Halal butcher’s store
by Tariq Ali which carries the following information:

“Special opening offer – Shoulder of Sheep £1.00 per kilo, minimum order
100 kilos. Maximum order 1,000 kilos. This special price lasts until 31 August.
Customers wishing to take advantage of this offer must notify us 24 hours in
advance of collection.

Tariq Ali and brother
2 Princethorpe Way
Derby, DE23 4QX tel: 01332 838452 email: »

M Christopher sends an email to Tariq at 10 :00 on 24th of August ordering
1,000 kilos to be collected at 14:00 on the 25 August. Tariq was so busy that
day that he did not read the email until 18:00. Meanwhile he put a notice in
the newspaper published at 14f:00 on 24 August saying that because of high
demand each customer was being limited to 100 kilos only.

As a result of Tariq refusing to supply the other 900 kilos M Christopher has
to make last minute arrangement to get Halal meat which costs £2.50 per kilo.
He sues Tariq for the £1,350 he has lost in profits. Judge Meenot in the
County Court rules that were the matter open he would find that a reasonable
person would consider that the advertisement constituted an offer to supply
up to 1,000 kilos and that M Christopher had accepted that offer at 10:00 on
24 August when he sent the email. However, he felt bound by the series of
cases from Grainger v Gough to Patridge v Crittenden to hold that this
advertisement did not constitute an offer capable of acceptance; and even if he
were wrong and it was on offer, that an email should be governed by the same
principle as a telex, and did not take effect until read, by which time Tariq had
revoked the offer by publication of the advertisement.

M Christopher appeals to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
1. There is not rule that an advertisement cannot constitute an offer and the
wording of this one did constitute an offer.
2. An email should be governed by the postal rule and Tariq clearly implied
that an order placed by letter or email would suffice.

To top