Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3


Upon arrival of the journey from Malaysia to Indonesia, Ciku found a “golden ring” which was lying on the seat in front of him. He took it with him since he knew that it belong to his friend, Tembikai. Ciku quickly run to get Tembikai but fail. However, few days later, Ciku manage to meet Tembikai and gave Tembikai the ring. Later on, Ciku discovered that Tembikai had advertised a reward in sum of RM 1000 for the return of the ring.

Advice Ciku whether he could claim the reward?

Proposed answer: -


Whether Ciku could claim the reward of RM1000 from Tembikai when Ciku returned the golden ring to Tembikai.


The relevant statute in this question is the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA”), specifically regarding the elements of contract, Offer/Proposal.

Section 2 of CA states that proposal is made when one signifies to another his willingness to do or not to do something in exchange for a value.

Section 4 (1) of CA further states that an offer must be communicated and must come to the knowledge of the offeree.

In the case of R v. Clarke, pursuant to a reward offered by the government, Clarke supplied the required information which later lead to the arrest of the suspect. He later claimed for the reward. When Clarke supplied the information he forgot about the reward.

The Court held that forgetting about the reward is the same as not knowing about the reward. Clarke is said to have no knowledge of the reward. As the reward offer is not communicated to Clarke, he could not claim the reward.

Further, in the case of Fitch v Snedaker, the Court held that a person who does not has knowledge of the reward, could not claim for the reward.


Applying the above authorities in Ciku’s situation, when Ciku returns the golden ring to Tembikai, he is not aware of the RM1000 reward offered by Tembikai in the advertisement.

He only got to know about the reward later on and after he has returned the golden ring to Tembikai.

As such, Ciku can be said to have no knowledge about the RM1000 reward made by Tembikai and that the reward offer is not communicated to him.

Following the principles in Section 4(1) of CA and the case of R v Clarke and Fitch v Snedaker, when Ciku does not know about the reward, he cannot claim for the RM1000 reward offered by Tembikai. This is because the offer regarding the reward is not communicated to him.


Based on the argument stated above, Ciku cannot claim for the RM1000 reward from Tembikai for the returned of the golden ring because Ciku does not have knowledge about the reward.


John Snow offers to sell 1,000 dragons to Lannister for the sum of RM5,000.00. On 15.1.2017, John Snow posted a letter of offer which Lannister received 20.1.2017. On the same day, Lannister sent the letter of acceptance to John Snow. The next day, Lannister revoked his acceptance by telegram.

Advise John Snow if he received the telegram one day before the acceptance letter arrived


15.1.2017- offer 20.1.2017-acceptance letter () 21.1.2017- revocation by telegram Revocation received Acceptance received

Propose Draft Answer:-


Whether John Snow can sue Lannister for breach of contract when Lannister revokes his


Whether the contract entered between JS and Lannister is still valid and enforceable?


Relevant statute- CA 1950, specifically on elements of contract, acceptance and revocation of acceptance.

Since mode of revocation was done by way of telegram, postal rule will apply.

Section 2(b) of CA- definition of acceptance

Section 4 (2)(b) of CA- communication of acceptance is complete against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.

Section 4(3)(b)- communication of a revocation is complete against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge.

Section 5(2) of CA- An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance reaches the acceptor, not later/afterwards.

Illustration to Section 5 of CA


proposes, by a letter sent by post, to sell his house to B.


accepts the proposal by a letter sent by post.


may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the letter

communicating it reaches A, but not afterwards

Case:- Dunmores v Alexander

Court held that revocation of acceptance is valid as the revocation was done before the acceptance of the offer reaches the proposer.

Similar principle in the case of Ethores v Miles far East Corporation


Apply the above authorities, Lannister has accepted John Snow’s offers to sell 1,000 dragons to him for RM5,000.00 on 20.1.2017. The acceptance is complete when John Snow receives the letter of acceptance (Section 4(2)(b) of CA). However, before the letter acceptance reaches John Snow, Lannister had on 21.1.2017 sent a telegram revoking his acceptance. Section 5(2) of CA states that revocation made before acceptance is complete is valid. This principle is also held in Dunmore v Alexander’s case. Assuming John Snow received the revocation telegram before he receives the acceptance letter, applying the said law, the revocation made by Lannister is valid.

As such, there is no breach of contract on Lannister’s part. So, John Snow cannot sue Lannister for breach of contract as the revocation of acceptance is valid.


The revocation of acceptance by Lannister is valid and therefore he is not in breach of contract. Hence, John Snow cannot take any action against Lannister as there is no longer a valid contract because it has been revoked before acceptance arrives.