Problem Question (1)

Dato Ipin wants to give his son a parcel of land in Mentakab, Pahang for
his coming birthday. As his son will not pay any money to him, Dato Ipin
worried that the contract may be void by virtue of section 26 of the
Contracts Acts 1950.

Advise Dato Ipin.

Content

Section 26 of the Contract Acts provide an agreement made without

consideration are void unless they belong to one of those categories of
agreements listed in the same section as being exempted from the rule.
Consideration can be defined as in section 2(d) as when at the desire of
the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from
doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from
doing, something, such as acts or abstinence is called a consideration of
the promise

Issue

1. Whether the contracts between Dato Ipin and his son are valid?

2. Whether the natural love and affection affects the legality of the
contracts?

Law

Therefore, based on the fact mentioned above, I would like to advise

Dato Ipin that he may argue about the land that he want to give to his son
would fall under exception (a) to Section 26 of the Contacts Act. Although
the said Act does not define near relation, yet the courts by decided
cases had actually accept members of immediate family will ordinarily
constitute as near relation.

Even though, English law does not recognize natural love and affection as
valid consideration. However, the position under the Contracts Act 1950 is
differing by virtue of Section 26(a) of Contracts Acts which said as follows:-
An agreement made without consideration is void, unless it is expressed in
writing and registered under the law (if any) for the time being in force for
the registration of such documents, and is made on account of natural love
and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other

As such Illustration (b) to section 26 of Contracts Act provides an example

which as follows:-

...A, for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, $1,000. A
puts his promise to B in writing and registers it under a law for the time
being in force for the registration of such documents. This is a contract.

Therefore, an agreement made on the ground of natural love and affection

would be valid based on this requirements of Section 26 (a) of the
Contracts Act are present, if it is full filled the condition as follows:-

i) It is expressed in writing;

ii) It is registered (if applicable); and

iii) The parties stand in a near relation to each other.

The requirement that the document be registered appears unnecessary as

there is no law in force in Malaysia requiring registration of agreements
made on account of natural love and affection.

In the case of Re Tan Soh Sim. She had three sisters.Tan Soh Sim married,
but having no issue, adopted four children. The deceased Tan Soh Sim in
her last illness had expressed a wish that her estate should be divided
among two adopted sons and two adopted daughters. The legal next-of-
kin, respecting her wish, drew up the agreement and renouncing all right
favour of four adopted children who were their nephews and nieces.Tan
Soh Sim died without having recovered consciousness. The question arose
in the distribution of Tans estate, whether the instrument signed was
valid. It was contended that he instrument was a contract under Section
26(a) of the Contracts (Malay States) Ordinance 1950.
This raised the further question what exactly was meant by near
relations under section 26 (a) of the Ordinance. The Court of Appeal
stated that the words relationship and near must applied and
interpreted in each case according to the mores of the group to which the
parties belong and with regard to the circumstances of the family
concerned. A person who has been adopted according to Chinese custom
therefore is a relation and the answer to the question whether he is a
near relation within the scope of section 26 of the Contracts Ordinance
depends on the position of the other person in regard to whom the
question arise. It can hardly be doubted that agreements between an
adopted child and his adoptive parents or brothers would be supported on
the ground of affection existing between them. Accordingly, the court held
that the instrument did not fulfill section 26(a) of the Contracts Act.The
court further stated that in the phrase natural love and affection, full
effect must be given to the world natural, and that it means not only
reasonably to be expected, but reasonably to be expected, having
regard to the normal emotional feelings of human beings. This
immediately establishes the connection of these words with the latter
phrase standing in a near relation. That phrase indicates that the
emotional feelings required are of a special type, that is to say, they are
such feelings as may ordinarily be expected to spring from the fact of the
near relation. If either the feelings or the relation are lacking the section
does not apply.

Application

In my effort to advise Dato Ipin is he entitle to give his land to his son as
the remoteness of the blood relations are too close as a father and son
which might validate the transfer of the land without any monetary
consideration. Furthermore, it is evident that, if an agreement made
between Dato Ipin and his son as the condition precedent of Section 26
(a) of the Contracts Act that mention as agreement on account natural
love and affection had been fulfilled at first then the transfer of the
property made between both of them deem to be valid in accordance with
Malaysian Law.

Beside that, the strong and close proximity of relationship between Dato
Ipin and his son as father and daughter is adequate to maintain that no
consideration to be deposited by his son to entitle him to receive the land
from Dato Ipin.Hence his son does not required to pay anything.

Conclusion

Therefore, as a conclusion Dato Ipin wihout any fear and in view of the
case laws decided in favour of his position may give his land to his son
without any consideration from his son based on the sole consideration of
natural love and affection as per stipulated by virtue of Section 26 of
Contracts Act 1950.The contract between Dato Ipin and his son are valid.

Problem question (2)

During a journey home to Kampung Gunung Senyum, Yuzai found a jade

bracelet engraved with a dragon symbol lying in the muddy track. Yuzai
took it with him since he knew that it belonged to the head of gang leader
of Sungai Jerik, Strong Kim. Upon arrival, he went to see strong Kim and
gave the bracelet. Later, he discovered that Strong Kim had advertised a
reward in the sum of RM 10000 for the return of the jade bracelet.

Content

Issue

1. Whether there was a contract whereby Strong Kim was required to pay
10000?

2. Whether Yuzai can claim the money from Strong Kim?

Law

A corollary to the rule that only addressee may accept the proposal of the
principle of communication of the proposal. Unless there are
communication of the proposal as suggested by section 2(a) which reads
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.

This is Appeal case from Full Court of Western Australia. Clarke sued the
Crown for the 1000 reward as he promised for the information provided
leading.to arrest and conviction of murderers. Clarke and X were arrested
and charged with the murders. But after that, the latter gave information
lead to arrest another person Y ,X and Z. Then Clarke had seen the offer
and convicted for the offence and Clarke did not commit the murders
claimed the reward. His claimed are fail because the information given to
clear himself and not in reliance in offer of reward.

Then Higgins J said that Clarke did not intent to accept he has seen the
offer but it is not present in his mind and he had forgotten it. He gave no
consideration to it, in his intense excitement as to his own danger. There
cannot be assent without knowledge of the offer and ignorance of the offer
is the same thing whether it is due to never hearing of it or to forgetting it
after hearing .

Application

In my effort to advise Yuzai that he should claim the money or not. Yuzai
did not realized about the advertisement and gave the jade bracelet to
Strong Kim. Here, I can say that Yuzai did not aware of the advertisement
or offer made by the Strong Kim that if anybody found the jade bracelet
will be rewarded RM 10000. And Yuzai discovered about the offer after he
gave the jade bracelet. One cannot accept in ignorance of an offer as
there was no consensus of the mind and there had not been reliance or
action upon its faith at the prescribed time of performance.

Furthermore, as in the R v Clarke case. Clarke could not claim the reward
because he does not have intention to accept the offer but he did it to
clear himself. Same to the Yuzai, he did not have intention to accept the
offer gave by Strong Kim. He gave the jade bracelet because he know it
belong to head of gang leader not because the offer. Therefore, there is no
acceptance to the offer made by Strong Kim and Strong Kim does not need
to pay RM10000 to the Yuzai

Conclusion
The acceptance must be aware of and acting in reliance of the offer to
amount to acceptance.There shall be no reward to the claimant (Yuzai).
One must have acted in reliance upon the offer to claim for his proper
performance and acceptance of the offer. There is no contract between
Yuzai and Strong Kim.

Assignment
 law 299

PREPARED BY NURUL SHAFIQAH BINTI HASHIM

MATRIC NUMBER 2014550701
CLASS BM111 4A
PREPARED FOR MR. MOHD RIZAL BIN MOHD
ABDAN