Skeleton Argument Guide: Contract Breach Case Assignment Sample

1 .0 Introduction

1. The “Great Hotels Limited” is the Claimant (C) and “Lightbulb Limited” is the defendant of this following skeleton argument.
2. An agreement between the Claimant Great Hotel and Defendant Lightbulb Limited was signed on 28th November 2023 where Defendant agreed to supply six staff members for a ball and charity dinner which was to take place at “Royal Cambridge Hotel” on 16th December 2023. The C agreed to payment for providing 6 staff members. The contract agreed that the staff members performed the duties with skill and reasonable care from 6 pm to midnight.
3. However, the 2 members of the defendant Lightbulb Limited left the Royal Cambridge at 7 pm and one member left the Cambridge Hotel around 9 pm for which the Claimant Great Hotel claimed the “breach of Contract” against the defendant Lightbulb Limited.

Struggling with complex law assignments? Our expert Assignment Help offers clarity on challenging topics like contract breaches and civil procedure rules, ensuring you craft strong skeleton arguments and excel in your exams with confidence and precision. Native Assignment Help is your partner for academic success in law.

Relevant dates

1. The Contract agreement dates between Claimant Great Hotels and Defendant Lightbulb Limited was signed on the 28th of November, 2023.
2. The Charity ball and dinner program were arranged at the “Royal Cambridge Hotel” on the 16th of December, 2023.
3. The invoice for the amount of £540 was issued on 17th December 2023.
4. A default judgment was signed on 5th August 2024.
5. The application is made on 8th August 2024 for entering into the judgments.

2.0 Documents relied on

1. The documents are relied on based on general statements of the General Manager of Lightbulb Saleema Johnson.
2. A claim is received from the director authority of “Reilly St Clare”.
3. A witness statement letter is also received from Exhibit RSC/1 where the intended charges of Lightbulb are received.
4. The “Terms and Conditions” of the “

3.0 Factual Background

1. The defendant Lightbulb Limited provides staff services regularly for the clients. The Claimant Great Hotel agreed on a contract with Lightbulb Limited by following “Section 13 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982” to provide a total of 6 staff members at the “Royal Cambridge Hotel” on 16th December 2023.
2. In that agreement, Lightbulb Limited assures that the staff member will provide services from 6 pm to midnight. However, the 2 staff members suddenly left the Cambridge Hotel at 7 pm and 1 staff member left the service place at 9 pm.
3. The Claimant Great Hotels claimed a “Breach of Contract” due to the delivery of cold food, wasted 10 gallons of food items of gravy, inefficient services, and failure to wash up and clean up the tables.
4. The Claimant faced a financial loss total of £100,000 amount for refunding the dinner tickets, and overtime payments of £270 for 3 staff members. The Claimant also has to refund a total 2000 of dinner tickets. The C also claimed £100,270.00 on grounds of “35A Senior Courts Act 1981”.

4.0 Relevant Legal Test

1. The court can do some civil tests to identify the contract breach between the two parties of Great Hotels and Lightbulb Limited. The “Denton test” is a legal 3 stages test that helps to identify the legal and the civil procedure of the contract breach between the two parties. Using the “Denton Test” the court can decide whether the court can sanction the grant for contract breach between the two parties of Great Hotels and Lightbulb Limited.
2. The “Civil Procedure Rule (CRP) 3.9 can be also applicable on this ground to check whether the rules are complied with or not.

5.0 The Issues in the case

1. The key issues of the present cases between the Claimant and the Defendant arise for identification of “Breach of Contract” by the Defendant Lightbulb Limited. Therefore, the key issue raised whether the “Breach of Contract” is applicable or not.
2. Another key issue is to identify whether the default decision judgment of the court against Lightbulb.
3. The D can get any successful prospects from the claims of “Lightbulb Limited”.
4. The defendant Lightbulb Limited can provide a relevant excuse for leaving the “Royal Cambridge Hotel” before the agreement time.

6.0 Situation when the court may aside default judgments under CPR 13.3

CPR 13.3

This rule is relevant in the application that Lightbulb Limited intends to bring to set aside the default judgment that was entered in favor of Great Hotels. It defines the circumstances under which the court may allow this relief that is if Lightbulb has prospects of mounting a viable defense to the claim or for another reason. The rule’s relevance becomes apparent once it is applied to Lightbulb’s case since the company has to prove to the court that the non-response was in good faith and that it has grounds to do so.

Civil Procedure Rule Part (CPR) 13

These materials are best understood in the framework of CPR 13 under which Great Hotels obtained the default judgment against Lightbulb. This rule is important because it defines how such judgments can be obtained, and when they can be appealed. It is important for Lightbulb to understand this rule since it lies at the foundation of their application to stay the judgment with a view of arguing procedural unfairness and a right to defend oneself.

CPR 3.9 (1)

CPR 3.9 Arising from the same, 9(1) applies to Lightbulb’s application since it addresses the sanction that is the default judgment. This rule as stated enshrines the autonomy of compliance with court orders but at the same time states that this may be altered if the circumstances warrant it to be done so. Lightbulb must prove non-accidental non-compliance and show that this failure is excusable to claim relief under this rule.

Denton test

The Denton test is directly applicable to Lightbulb’s application to set aside the default judgment. The test’s three stages: the seriousness of the breach, reasons for the default, and more general circumstances surrounding the contract will determine what the court will do. Lightbulb has to convince the court that the breach had not been a material one and that there was a rational explanation for it; and also that justice can best be done by this suit proceeding to a trial on the merits.

Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.9

Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3 provides that the court ‘shall’, while CPR 3.1 states that the ‘court may’. 9 is concerned with applications for relief from sanctions for non-compliance with rules, orders or directions of the court. This known as the Jackson and Moorhead guidelines, it obliges courts to take into account all circumstances and the Four Factors, specifically the necessity of the proceedings and the need to keep the litigation efficient and cost effective as well as to enforce compliance with rules. The *Denton* test, derived from this rule, guides courts through three stages: determining the extent of the breach, the cause of the default and all the circumstances attending the case. This rule is particularly significant to parties that would wish to avoid adverse consequences arising from technical mistakes or even undue delay.

Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd (CA) [2013] Civ 1537

Mitchell remains valid as it points to the fact that the initial attitude of the courts to non-compliance with procedural rules is severe. Despite such a procedural discipline being later refined by Denton it is at its core about getting the fundamentals right. Lightbulb can use the evolution from Mitchell to Denton to show that though compliance is vital, their case should be spared because it could easily have been an honest mistake, and they have a viable defense.

White v Weston [1968] 2 QB 647

White v Weston will be used to support the issue because it introduces the setting aside of judgments that a defendant might have not been afforded a proper chance to present his/her/its case. For example, Lightbulb can put forward an argument that they were in a position not to understand what was going on in the proceedings as much as a party can be found to be ignorant of the proceedings going on against him or her hence leading to the setting aside of the judgment in the purported trial.

Section 13 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

This section is very important to the foundation of the claim against Lightbulb on which merits it will be grounded. Great Hotels’ complaint is that the staff served did not do so with reasonable care and skill, a violation of the implied term under this Act. Lightbulb can use this Act to concentrate on whether the circumstances for example, the working conditions as described by the witness statements, prejudiced the staff from performing to this standard.

Consumers Rights Act 2015

Similar to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the Consumers Rights Act 2015 give provisions that are near identical and stress on the quality of services that is being offered. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is useful in the context of this case study because it supports the implied terms that Lightbulb’s staff should have fulfilled. Lightbulb can rely on this Act to support that the circumstances under which their staff had to work were unreasonably and hence caused them poor performance.

7.0 Application of Denton Tests and Justification of Whether C satisfied the three stages test

1. The “Denton Test” is the popular test of three stages that helped to address the significance and the seriousness of the present case history. Therefore, the above three stages of the “Denton Test” can easily identify the justification for the claimant's Claim regarding contract breach guidelines.
2. In the first stage, the court can identify the significance and the seriousness of the ground of non-compliance for verifying the contract breach purpose from the above argumenta brief statements. It is also found that D Lightbulb Limited failed to acknowledge the services that are used in the above case scenario.
3. Seriousness grounds are also identified in the above case situation that is raised in the above segments. The Great Hotel received the default judgment against the defendant Lightbulb due to failure of file. The default judgment by the court automatically gave the chance of winning the Great Hotels for which the defendant failed to provide any defense judgments in this situation. This creates the seriousness of the above case that is identified in the above case between claimant Great Hotels and the defendant Lightbulb Limited.
4. The second stage of the “Danton Test” is to check the contract breach between the parties. Here, it is identified that Lightbulb Limited provided the services of the 6 staff members for a charity dinner at the “Royal Cambridge Hotel”. The contract was signed on 28th November 2023 where the revenue of ticket charges was £100,000. However, the 3 staff were worked for only 3 hours for which the Great Hotel has to suffer from poor service management, unclear washing up of tables, and Poor staff services for which the contract breach is claimed in this above context. However, if Lightbulb fails to provide sufficient defense situation, in that case, the adjustment of the contract breach is aligned.
5. The third stage determines the significance of the “Danton Test” to identify the claim of breach in this ground. If D, Lightbulb Ltd failed to claim the defense judgment then Great Hotels Limited might receive the default judgements in this ground.

8.0 Relevancy of the cases

The above case clearly explains that the above case study got the default judgments due to a misunderstanding of the legal process of the court. Here, the defendant failed to submit the defense judgments against the Light Hub. The Light Hub can also give the response that Legal Bulb should provide a defense for contract breach challenges. Misunderstanding of the civil procedure leads to receiving the default judgments by the court. The intentional delay is not the key fact here. However, misunderstanding of the legal process of CPR Civil procedures.

9.0 Conclusion

The above skeleton argument discussed the challenge of contract breach between the defendant Lightbulb Limited and Great Hotels. The above section mentioned that the application of the “Denton Test” provides a serious measurement for the identification of the key significance, justifications, and contract breach issues. It is identified that misunderstanding of the entire civil procedure is the key reason for facing default judgments for the Claimant Great Hotels. However, the “Denton Test” identified the serious context of the contract breach issues faced by the Claimants. However, in this above situation, the D Lightbulb Limited can provide the context for satisfaction of the 3 major stages of “Denton Test”.