2. This case at first instance was argued before Mr. Edward Bartley Jones QC. As of 22nd January 2009, when this case was being heard in the High Court, Mr. Grant still held shares in the company which had gone bankrupt. He claimed that the emails sent among the parties in this case satisfied the factors needed for the formation of a contract. The primary issue of this court was to determine whether both parties by the emails sent and received had entered a contract for the purchase of Mr. Grant’s shares by Mr. Bragg at a price of £346,760. The court ruled in favour of the claimant. The judge decided through the application of precedent set out in G. Percy Trentham Limited v Archital Luxfer Limited that Mr. Bragg by 30th January 2007 was already reaping the benefits of the claimant’s shares although he had not bought them. He said that, ‘nothing at this point remained to be agreed’, seeing as both parties had accepted the Dixon Ward wording and all that was needed from Mr. Grant on 30th January 2007 was to give a definitive confirmation of acceptance. He believed that the fourth email did not place a time scale for the acceptance of the contract but its purpose was to cajole Mr. Grant to come to a quick decision. His judgement provides that the first and last emails formed a contract. 3. The appellant, Mr. Bragg, brought forward three points against the previous judgement of the Royal High Court; (a.) per the conversation between the shareholders which took place at the end of January 2007 and Mr. Grant’s rejection of the Dixon Ward wording, Mr. Grant rejected the offer and following the rules of contract law an offer once rejected becomes void. ;>