BAHRAIN POLYTECHNIC

Contract Law and the

Bahrain Legal System
BSB 6003 Business Law
Mohammed Haji
201100040

Class 1
Supervised By: Yasmin Sebah
Word Count: 2999
Assessment 1

Part I
After World War II, Bahrain joined with Qatar and several other states under British protection
to form a union of Arab emirates. However, all of the states had not agreed on the terms of union by the
middle of 1971. Therefore, Bahrain, Qatar and the other states (which is now the United Arab Emirates)
sought their independence. Bahrain declared its independence in post August 1971. This is why
Bahrains legal system is mostly influenced by the English common law. It is also partially influenced by
the Egyptian rules which were derived from the French. (Bahrain, 2012)
Bahrains legal system is under the Islamic law (Sharia law) too. Since the independence,
Bahrain had followed a similar pattern to other Arab countries in terms of Legislation. In 26th May 1973,
Bahrain developed its constitution. It states in Article 2 that the Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for
legislation (Bahrain Constitution, 2002), which most Arab countries follow. Bahrain follows the
Sharia law mainly because it is governed by Arabs, who are Muslims. Also, it is because Bahrains
location is between many other Arab and Muslim countries that are under the Sharia law.
The judiciary in Bahrains court system is divided into different parts; Sharia courts, civil courts,
and military courts. The Sharia courts are divided into two separate departments for Shiites and Sunnis.
The Shiites apply the Jafari figh, and the Sunnis apply the Shafii and Maliki figh. Cases that relate to
Muslim personal status fall under these courts. However, cases that related to personal properties are
not under the jurisdiction of these courts, because civil courts will have control over them. These courts
have jurisdiction to reconcile all cases related to any Muslims personal status. There are three different
courts for the Sharia court system for both Shiites and Sunnis:

One of those courts is called the Junior Sharia court. These courts apply to cases that relate to

personal status in the first instance. It covers matters such as taking care of the wife and children, cases
regarding allowance or alimony, whether they want to raise it, decrease the amount or stop paying,
cases relating to having custody of a child and keeping them safe, and if they could travel with them to
another country whether to visit or live there, and cases that have to do with inheritance. The court
applies the notarization law on cases that comprise deeds that relate to personal status and endowment
(waqf). The notarization law governs the techniques that certify many civil and commercial contracts. In
the case of Hosain vs Malik in 1996, Malik filed for custody of their daughter. The court looked at
various details of the case, and on appeal, the court granted the custody to Malik.

Another court in the Sharia court system is the Senior Sharia court. This courts deals with cases

that relate to matrimonial law-suits, such as proving marriage, divorce, nullity, separation between two
spouses on the terms of the Sharia law, cases that prove whether parenthood was present or not, cases
whether the client may have custody of a child if the client has any mental or physical disorders, such as
forgetfulness, mental disqualification or lifting, cases regarding proof of death of a person, or if they are
missing, cases that relate to waqf. The cases concerning any personal status matters that the Junior
Sharia court does not cover will be covered by the Senior Sharia court. This court controls the final
outcome given by the Junior Sharia courts judgments.

The last type of court is the High Sharia Court of Appeal. This court reviews and has control over

the judgments made by the Senior Sharia Court. Each High Sharia court consists of a president and two
judges. One of the judges must be president or his deputy. (Radhi, 2003)
The Sharia courts also manage personal and family laws, but they are unlegislated. Judges who
are involved in these cases should look at other sources of law, and should settle them by applying the
principles of Sharia law, custom, natural law, or principles of equity and good conscience, in that order.
The military court in Bahrain has jurisdiction over the crimes committed by the members of
security or army. It has no control over the citizens unless the country is under Martial law, where
people have to abide by their rules. (Bahrain Polytechnic, 2012)
Civil law usually deals with cases that involve private disputes people or companies. The cases
normally have two parties in them, the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff claims that another
person or organization (defendant) has failed to carry out a legal duty that they were promised to
receive. The plaintiff would then request the court to tell the defendant to satisfy their duty or pay
compensation for the damages done. (FindLaw, 2012)
Civil courts have power to settle criminal, commercial, civil cases, and cases that relate to
personal status of non-Muslims. The highest court judgment is the Supreme Court of Appeal, also known
as the Court of Cassation. It was established in 1989 and has jurisdiction over all the types of cases
mentioned above. A Decree law (no. 8) (1989) that introduces the Court of Cassation directs that this
Court has jurisdiction to decide cases filed simultaneously in the Civil and Sharia courts or before two
Sharia courts or to settle any dispute arising from conflicting judgments between such courts, as well as
jurisdiction over civil and commercial matters and personal status suits involving non-Muslim or nonBahrainis.
2

In the problem task given, the British company ABC Software which is operating in Bahrain
advertised in a newspaper (the Daily News) about their new anti-virus software on Monday. They also
stated that they would pay compensation of 3,000BD to any person that bought the software and did
not work properly. Usually, advertisements are invitations to treat, but in this case it is not. In fact, it is
an offer.
In the case given, four people who purchased the software after the offer was made were
complaining about the anti-virus software and wanted their compensation. These cases have nothing to
do with any Sharia law, therefore they will be held in civil courts (the court of cassation to be precise).

Part II
ABC Softwares advertisement on the Daily News, which is a unilateral offer, is not an invitation
to treat because they were legally bound by what they mentioned. They advertised on Monday that
they are awarding compensation of 3000BD if the anti-virus software did not work properly. On Friday,
they put a notice on the National news that they cancelled the offer. Amal, Hussein, Mubarak and
Fatima are four people who claimed that they used the software and want their compensation. In order
to find out if ABC software is liable or not, the cases should be reviewed individually and the IRAC (Issue,
Rule, Application, and Conclusion) structure should be used. (Bahrain Polytechnic, 2012)
Amal: the issue in this case is that Amal works as the software engineer at ABC Software and
wanted to try the new anti-virus software. She borrowed a copy of the new software to try it at home.
When she did, she found out that the software did not work properly and did not remove all the viruses,
so she contacted her work to claim the compensation that was mentioned in the newspaper. Amal did
not actually purchase the product, but only borrowed it. The terms and conditions of ABC Software
should be provided in order to know that the offer is valid for employees, because the case says that
Amal is an employee there.
The rule in this situation states that the offeror must have the intentions to abide by his stated
terms in order to amount to an offer. This means that if the offeror gives an offer to another person, in
order for the offer to be valid the offeror must be legally bound by what he said.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. in 1893 applies to Amals case in many ways. The defendants
made an advertisement on the newspaper that their new product would prevent the influenza. They
also stated that they would reward 100 to anyone used the product correctly and still has the
influenza. In addition, to show that they are serious about their statement they deposited 1000 in a
different bank account. The claimant (Miss Carlill) purchased the product from her local chemist and as
soon as she became ill by the influenza she tried the smoke ball. The smoke ball did not prevent the
influenza, so she claimed for her 100 from the manufacturer. The court decided that the manufacturers
should pay Miss Carlill the reward since it was a unilateral offer and could be accepted by any person
who was diagnosed by the influenza and used their product and were not cured (Adams, 2010). In
Amals case, she is dealing with a unilateral offer made by ABC software that they would pay
compensation of 3000BD which could be accepted by anyone who tries the software and does not
remove the viruses. Amal had viruses in her computer, so she borrowed a copy of the software to tried
and remove them, but it did not work. Therefore, she claimed the offer made by the company.
In conclusion it is strongly advisable for ABC Software to pay Amal the compensation written in
the newspaper even though she did not purchase the product. The advertisement in the newspaper
clearly states that they would pay compensation of 3,000BD to any person who tried this software and
was unsuccessful in clearing their computer virus, and Amal did try it. However, the terms and
conditions of the company were not reviewed. If it is mentioned in the terms and conditions that any
offer made by the company is not valid for employees of the company, Amal would not be able to
receive the compensation, because she is an employee.
Hussein: the issue in this case is that after Hussein called the ABC Software and asked them if
they could increase the compensation up to 5000BD on Wednesday. It does not mention if Hussain has
accepted the offer yet. The company refused Husseins request, so Hussein said that he would accept
the original compensation of 3000BD. ABC Software refused to deal with him anymore and didnt pay
him the compensation. There is missing information in this case, which is that if Hussein did actually
purchase the product from them and try it.
The rule in article 41.C in the Civil Code states that An acceptance that goes beyond the offer,
or that is accompanied by a restriction or a modification, is deemed to be a rejection comprising a new
offer (Civil Code, 2001). This means that if the offeree decides to modify the original offer, the offer
will immediately be terminated, and the offeree becomes the offeror where a new offer is made.

However, another rule states that if the offeree has not accepted the offer yet and asked for further
information to see if further negotiation is possible, the offer would not be destroyed (Adams, 2010).
One of the cases that apply to Husseins case is Hyde vs Wrench in 1840. The defendant
wanted to sell his farm, so he put an offer on it to sell it for 1000. The plaintiff said that he would
purchase the farm for 950. Later he informed the defendant that he would happily pay the full price.
The defendant rejected both offers. The court decided there was no contract between the two parties.
The plaintiff destroyed the defendants initial offer of the 1000 by reducing the price by his counteroffer. The defendant did not accept the plaintiffs offer. This has completely destroyed the offer
between them and the plaintiffs statement could not recover the original offer, because it was a new
offer which the defendant didnt accept (Adams, 2010). This is partially related to Husseins case
because Hussein only asked to change the price of the compensation which the company refused to do
so. Husseins action did not actually destroy the original offer of ABC Software, and Husseins statement
that he would like to receive the original compensation was terminated because that would mean the
ABC Software refused to deal with him any longer. The case of Stevenson vs McLean in 1880 is more
related to this case because the offeree only asked if the delivery and payment could be made in
installments, which did not terminate the contract between them and was not considered as a counteroffer.
The conclusion or recommendation for this case would be that the best course of action that
ABC Software could do is to pay compensation for Hussein if he actually bought the product and tried it.
The main reason is because Hussein only asked to increase the price of the compensation to 5000BD
which does not destroy the original offer to give compensation of 3000BD. ABC Software should
therefore pay the original compensation because Hussein only asked for further information.
Mubarak: the issue in this situation is that Mubarak purchased the new anti-virus software on
Thursday from ABC Software without any knowledge of the offer which was written in the newspaper.
The software did not work properly and did not remove the viruses from his computer. In the same day,
Mubarak noticed the advertisement about the offer in the newspaper, so he contacted the company in
order to receive his compensation of 3000BD. This case is very direct and there are no missing details
that are not mentioned.
The rule that is relevant to this case is that the offeree must know of the offer in order to be
able to accept. This means that the offer must be communicated to the offeree in any way possible and
5

that he should know about it to accept it. The rule also states that there would be no binding contract if
there was coincidental performance of the terms on an offer made in ignorance of its existence. This
means that if a person purchased a product without knowing that there was an offer on it, the contract
of the offer would cease to exist (Adams, 2010).
There is a case that is relevant to Mubaraks case, which is Bloom vs American Swiss Watch
Co. in 1915. The defendant had advertised that there would be a reward to whoever found evidence to
some jewel thieves that have previously stolen from the shop. Unknowingly of the advertisement,
Bloom (claimant) found evidence of the thieves and handed it in to the authorities and they caught the
thieves. He later discovered the advertisement that the defendant had made, so he contacted them to
get the reward. The defendant refused to grant him the award. The court decided that the defendant
was not legally obliged to award anything to the claimant since the advertisement was not directly
communicated to him. Therefore, there was no contract available between them and the case was
quashed (Adams, 2010). This applies to Mubaraks case because it is very similar to it. Mubarak
purchased ABC Softwares new anti-virus software without knowing about the offer on the newspaper.
After he used it and it did not work properly, he noticed the advertisement on the newspaper about the
compensation of 3000BD and contacted them. ABC Software refused to pay compensation to Mubarak
since he had no knowledge about the offer and it was not communicated to him directly.
The conclusion in this case would be that ABC Software is not legally required to award
Mubarak the compensation because the contract between them ceases to exist. The main reason is
because Mubarak purchased the product without knowing about the advertisement, meaning that the
offer was not communicated to him.
Fatima: the issue in Fatimas case is that ABC Software decided to cancel its offer, so they placed
a notice in the National News, which is a different newspaper from when they made the offer. Fatima
just came back from her holiday on Friday and had a copy of the Daily News from the day before. So she
noticed the advertisement and purchased the anti-virus software the day she returned. The software did
not delete all the viruses from her computer, so she called the company to claim for her compensation,
but they replied that the offer had been cancelled.
The rule that is related to this case is mentioned in article 38 in the Civil Code which states that
The person who makes the offer shall have the choice to withdraw from his offer as long as it is not
associated with an acceptance (Civil Code, 2001). This means that the offeror can withdraw his offer
6

any time he wants to if there was not acceptance from a second party. However, if the offeror wants to
withdraw his offer, it should be revoked in the same procedure the offer was made.
The case Routledge vs Grant in 1828 applies to Fatimas case. The defendant offered to
purchase the plaintiffs house. He promised that he would keep the offer available open for six weeks. It
was legally acceptable for him to revoke his promise at any time if the claimant did not accept his offer
(Adams, 2010). This is relevant to Fatimas case because ABC Software revoked their offer before Fatima
purchased the product. The company published a unilateral offer in the Daily News, but posted a notice
on Friday that they cancelled their offer in the National News, which is a different newspaper. Fatima
read the advertisement in a copy of the Daily News newspaper that she had with her the day before
they cancelled the offer, so she purchased the software and it did not clear her computers viruses. She
then claimed her compensation from the company.
In conclusion, the best course of action that ABC Software should do is that they must pay
Fatima the compensation of 3000BD. The main reason is because ABC Software did not revoke their
offer in the same procedure as they offered it. Fatima has the right to claim the compensation because
she had no knowledge about the revocation of the offer made by the company in the other newspaper.

Bibliography
Bahrain. (2012). In Encyclopdia Britannica. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/49072/Bahrain/93660/History
Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases - Key Differences. (n.d.). FindLaw. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://public.findlaw.com/library/legal-system/civil-vs-criminal-cases.html
Radhi, H. A. (2003). The Hierarchy of the Courts. Judiciary and arbitration in Bahrain: a historical and
analytical study (pp. 107, 108). London: Kluwer Law International.
Top 20 Cases | Shariah in American Courts. (n.d.). Shariah in American Courts. Retrieved April 22, 2012,
from http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=396
Tschentscher, P. D. (n.d.). ICL - Bahrain Constitution. Internetprojekte. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ba00000_.html
Adams, A. (2010). The Law of contract: Offer and Acceptance. Law for business students (6th ed., pp. 68,
70, 71, 72). Harlow: Pearson/Longman.
Bahrain Polytechnic (2012). Lecture Week 2 Class 1: Offer-Acceptance [PowerPoint slides]. Isa Town,
Bahrain: Bahrain Polytechnic
Bahrain Polytechnic (2012). Lecture Week 2 Class 2: Bahrain Sources of Law [PowerPoint slides]. Isa
Town, Bahrain: Bahrain Polytechnic