Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, function 'wpdocs_custom_excerpt_length' not found or invalid function name in /home/myonysqo/myonlinehomeworkhelper.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 287

Skeleton argument

June 19, 2015 0 Comment

Project description
University of the East of England v Edwards

In the Court of Appeal

Ms Edwards is a student at the University of the East of England. She lives in halls of residence, and pays 140 per week for her accommodation, 20 a week less than she would pay for the equivalent private rental property in her area. Her tenancy agreement includes the following terms:
(a) Students are prohibited from holding parties in the accommodation without the prior permission of the University;
(b) Collective liability will be imposed upon students for damage when the individual(s) responsible cannot be identified; each student will pay an equal proportion in respect of any such damage;
(c) The University accepts no liability in negligence for property damage suffered by students on University premises.

In order to raise money to pay for a holiday, Ms Edwards wants to hold a themed party in her university accommodation, and to charge each guest a 10 admission fee. She does not want to seek the permission of the University for this party, since she believes that her plan to charge an entrance fee, and the theme, music inspired by LSD, would be unacceptable to it and she thinks that term (a) is unfair and therefore contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Ms Edwards also thinks that term (c) is unfair because it is unreasonable and therefore contrary to s 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). This term concerns her because her MP3 player has been broken in her halls of residence by the Universitys negligence.
The trial judge accepts Ms Edwards argument, holding:

(1) That term (a), considered in the light of term (b), is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and therefore not binding on her;


(2) That term (c) is unreasonable under UCTA.

The University is appealing against both findings.

Based on the above case, we are to write a skeleton argument for a mooting assignment.

My arguments are as follows:

I must respond to the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellants as my aim is to have the decision of he original court reaffirmed.
I must argue the opposite of that stated in the grounds of appeal any decisions in the supreme court which support the first instance decision are likely to be binding on the court of appeal
I should carefully argue why such authorities should be applied in this case.

A total of 3 authorities (cases, statutes, secondary sources) may be referred to by each person.
You will usually use cases and statutes for your authorities, however journals and books can occasionally be helpful.
Practitioner texts:
Chitty on Contracts or Treitel on Contract
Megarry Law of Real Property
Halsburys Laws (on LexisLibrary) always a good starting point for finding key authorities

Skeleton arguments should include:

An outline of the arguments that you wish to make, including the authorities that
you intend to rely on in your submissions.
includes: name, what you want to say, summarise main points, structure all important
no details (details are presented orally)
not too wordy
reference cases


  • 100% Original Essays Guaranteed
  • 8 Hrs Delivery Available
  • Original and creative work
  • Timely delivery guaranteed
  • 100% confidentiality guarantee
  • Variety of disciplines, topics, and deadlines
  • Discounts offered on every custom-ordered paper
  • Original papers written from scratch;
  • 100% confidential;
  • 100% plagiarism-free;
  • Fast turn-around time;
  • Direct communication with the writer;
  • Instant email delivery;
  • Free plagiarism reports;
  • 24/7 customer support team.
  • Choose your font
  • 12 point font size
  • Double-sized
  • Over 275 words/page
  • Text aligned left
  • One inch margin

We Accept


you have a money back guarantee if you are not satisfied with our services