Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Question 1

There are nine elements that must exist in a contract to make a contract valid.
The nine elements are offer/proposal, acceptance, consideration, and intention to
create legal relation, certainty, formality, free consent, capacity and legality.
Proposal is defined in s2 (a) Contracts Act 1950. It means when a person
shows his/her willingness to enter into a contract with terms and conditions, which the
person made the offer. In order to make a contract valid, the conditions of every
element are important. A proposal can make to individual, group of people or all the
people in the world. According to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1893,
while the condition of proposal is fulfilled, the offeror must fulfill his part of the
agreement. In Carlills case, the manufacturers advertised a reward of 100 pounds for
those who used the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks and his influenza not
yet get well. The manufacturers also put 1000pounds in the bank to show their
sincerity. After Carlill saw the advertisement, she purchased the smoke ball and used
it three times daily for two weeks. After that, her influenza not yet get well so she
wanted to claim for the reward, but the manufacturers were not willing to pay her for
the reward and argued that it was not an offer, which could be accepted since it was
offered to whole world, and the offer was so unclear as no time limit was specified.
Lastly, the court held that the smoke ball must protect the user during the period while
they are using so the offer was not unclear and an offer to public can be accepted.
Proposal can be accepted by anyone provided he fulfills the condition and if the
condition is fulfilled. Refers to Gunthing v Lynn (1831), the defendant agreed to pay a
further sum if it was lucky but the court held that the offer was too vogue. So one of
the conditions of proposal is the terms in the proposal must be specific. In addition,
always look at the word used in the proposal. In Harvey v Facey (1893) case, Harvey
telegraphed Facey and asked will he sell them Bumper Hall Pen and what was the
lower cash price. Facey replied that the lowest cash price was 900 pounds and Harvey
purported to accept the offer. Then, the court held that the price information is not the
real price of the Bumper Hall Pen. Hence, it was not an offer to accept.
Acceptance is defined in s2 (b) Contracts Act 1950 as when a person shows
that he accepts the proposal that made by others, this called as acceptance; and also
become a promise after the proposal accepted by a person. When the acceptance is
concerned, the conditions to make acceptance valid are stated in s7 (a) Contracts Act

1950 and s7 (b) Contracts Act 1950. Moreover, the acceptance must be
communicated. In s7 (a) Contracts Act 1950 states that an acceptance must be
absolute and unqualified. In the case of Neale v Merret, the offer was to sell land at
280 pounds but Neale ostensibly accepted enclosing 80 pounds and promising to pay
the rest by installments of 50pounds. But the court held that the term 280pounds in the
offer is meaning to cash and not installments. So the acceptance was not valid because
it was qualified. Besides that, the acceptance must be expressed in some usual and
reasonable manner, unless the offeror prescribes the manner in which it is to be
accepted, it is stated in s7 (b) Contracts Act 1950.
In a nutshell, once the conditions of proposal and acceptance are fulfilling,
then the contract is valid.

Question 2
There are totally two issues in this case.
First issue: Is there a contract between Ahmad and Maju Jaya Supermarket?
Law and Application: When Maju Jaya Supermarket advertises in the newspapers
about a vacancy for the post of manager, these can either be an invitation to treat or an
offer. Offer is defined in s2 (a) Contracts Act 1950 as when one person signifies to
another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to
obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a
proposal. An invitation to treat is simply means like an invitation to make an offer. In
Majumder v Attorney (1967), a newspaper advertised that a medical officer was
needed in Sarawak for duties and also set out the salary scale. But the court held that
the advertisement was an invitation to treat. However in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co. (1893), the information in the advertisement is very details because in the
advertisement it shown that the company will pay 100 pounds as reward for those
who contracted influenza after using smoke ball three times daily for two weeks. So
according to Carlills case, the advertisement is an offer. On the facts, it is most likely
the advertisement is an invitation to treat. Besides that, the advertisement stated that
those who are interested could come anytime to Maju Jaya Supermarket for an
interview from 11th April 2014 to 21st April 2014. Ahmad came to Maju Jaya
Supermarket for interview but the post already filled so he felt angry about it. Hence,
the advertisement is an invitation to treat because Ahmad came for an interview on
20th April 2014 but was told that the post already filled.
Conclusion: There is no contract between Ahmad and Maju Jaya Supermarket and
Ahmad cannot sue for breach of contract because the advertisement is just only an
invitation to treat.
Second issue: Is there a contract between Mr. Chan and Maju Jaya Supermarket?
Law and Application: Mr. Chan entered to the supermarket and selected some items.
The items that displayed on the rack with price tags are an invitation to treat. An
invitation to treat is an invitation to make an offer. Offer is defined in s2 (a) Contracts
Act 1950 as when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain
from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or
abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. The case of Pharmaceutical Society v

Boots (1952) is an example of invitation to treat. In this case, Pharmaceutical Society


sued Boots that displayed the drugs that is poison in the self-service shop.
Pharmaceutical Society said that the drugs just could only sold under control of the
pharmacists. However, Boots was argued that customer was the one who making offer
to them because the customer picks up the drug himself or herself. Thus, the court
held that the display drugs were not an offer. On the facts, Mr. Chan selected the items
and put them into the trolley were not an offer. . The offer will just be make if Mr.
Chan brings all the selected items to the cashier and while the cashier accept the
payment is called as acceptance. Acceptance is defined in s2 (b) Contracts Act 1950
as when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.
Conclusion: There is no contract between Mr. Chan and Maju Jaya Supermarket and
so the Maju Jaya Supermarket cannot sue Mr. Chan for breach of contract.

References
Contracts Act 1950
E-lawresources.co.uk, (2015). Harvey v Facey. [online] Available at: http://www.elawresources.co.uk/Harvey-v-Facey.php [Accessed 4 Jul. 2015].
Lawnix.com, (2015). Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Case Brief Summary.
[online] Available at: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/carlill-carbolic-smoke-ball.html
[Accessed 3 Jul. 2015].