Final Moot Assignment Instructions 1. These instructions relate to the Moot Problem that appears thereunder. 2. All students are acting on behalf of the Appellant 3. Each student’s written and oral submissions will be assessed individually. 4. Each student’s written submission comprising their Legal Bundle shall be a maximum of 2,500 words. 5. Each student’s oral submissions must be based on their written submissions. Each student will have 5 minutes to make their oral submissions. 6. Each student is thereafter to write a reflective account of their experiences and learning from the moot; this must be submitted on or before Friday, the day of 2021 at 9.30 am by email The student is to reflect upon his/her experiences whilst preparing the final moot and upon the learning gained from the overall Mooting experiences and the implications of that learning for the student’s future behaviours and approaches. (This encompasses the process from the initial reading of the Moot problem to the reflection after the conclusion of the Moot). The reflection is also to include a critique of how the learning from the experiences in the practice moot influenced the student’s approach to and performance in the final moot. Final Moot Problem In the Court of Appeal Lucy v. Drew Drew and Lucy were long standing acquaintances who regularly had business dealings with one another. On 1 st November, Drew, from his home address in Letterkenny, wrote to Lucy at her address in Ballyshannon, offering to sell her his customised Renault Clio motor car, (which she has long admired), for €7,000, the offer to remain open until 5 th November. On receiving the offer on 2 nd November, Lucy left Ballyshannon on a business trip to Galway. On the 2nd November Drew sold the car to Kelly and posted to Lucy a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Lucy’s Ballyshannon address on 3rd November. On 4th November, Lucy posted an acceptance of the offer from Galway, addressed to Drew at his business address, (which was the address from which Drew usually conducted dealings with Lucy) in Dublin. It was delivered there on 5th November but as Drew was absent from his office on that day, it wasn’t read by him until 6 th November. On 7 th November Lucy returned home and read the letter of revocation. Lucy claimed that a contract had been formed between herself and Drew, in that she had accepted the offer either on 4th November through the application of the postal rule, or on the 5 th November when the letter was delivered to Drew’s place of business. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before Drew’s letter of revocation was communicated to her. Held by Nononsence J.: 1. that the postal rule did not operate to form a contract on 4th November, since the acceptance was posted to the wrong address. In such a case, the postal rule becomes displaced and the acceptance does not take place until the letter of acceptance is received and read, (i.e. on 6 th November) by which time the offer had lapsed. The court accepted the U.S.case of Eliason v. Henshaw 4 Wheat 225, as being a correct application of principle. 2. in any case, the offer had been revoked before Lucy’s letter of acceptance had been posted. Although the rule is that an offer is not revoked until the revocation is communicated to the offeree, in this case ‘communicated’ meant that the offeree should be given a reasonable time to read the letter of revocation, once it had been delivered to the place from which the offer had been made and at which the offeree was reasonably supposed to be present. This, at the latest, was at the close of business on 3rd November. Lucy is appealing against both findings