SCHOOL OF GENERAL STUDIES (SGS)

Bachelor of Business Administration (Hons.) in E-Commerce

Bachelor of Information Technology (Hons.) in Software Engineering
IN COLLABORATION WITH IUKL

TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT:
Individual Assignment: Law of Contract

Course Title:
Business Law
(BUSS 2422)

Prepared By:
Justin Jelan Anak Jack
(2019311830)

Prepared For:
Madam Nur Suryani Rosli

Date of Submission:
8 May 2020
 A) Whether she can terminate the agreement with Park Seroyi

Whether Yi Seo is able to terminate the agreement with Park Seroyi?

The contract applicable is Contract Act 1950 Section 10 (1) provide that all
agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to the
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void. In this case, the plaintiff is Yi Seo meanwhile the defendant is Park
Seroyi.

The relevant section in this situation is Section 17 (a) of Contract Act 1950. Section
17 state that “Fraud” includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or
with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent,
or to induce him to enter into the contract whereas Section 17 (a) mention that the suggestion,
as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true. In this case of
Weber V Brown, the plaintiff respondent sued the defendant-appellant for damages in respect
of an alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentation relating to the number of rubber trees
where the number of trees represented was in excess of the number, which actually existed on
the estate. HELD: the defendant had made the alleged misrepresentation falsely &
fraudulently and such act had caused the plaintiff to acquire & subsequently to exercise the
right of purchase.

Refer back on the situation given whereby, Yi Seo is a graduate from International
College of Advanced Technology Sarawak (iCATS). Her ambition is to operate her own
plantation. Yi Seo is lucky to have trust fund under her name and she plans to use the money
to purchase a plantation. She recently saw an advertisement on Facebook for the sale of
sugarcane plantation. Yi Seo is interested and went to negotiate the sale with the owner Park
Sae-Royi. After a few meetings, both parties agreed to the purchase price. Before signing the
agreement, Yi Seo was made to believe that 500 tons of sugarcane was produced annually at
the plantation. Yi Seo then proceed with the sale and signed the said agreement. One week
later when Yi Seo examined the accounts of the plantations, it shows that only 400 tons of
sugarcane was produced. According to Section 17 stated that “Fraud” includes any of the
following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent,
with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the
contract whereas Section 17 (a) mention that the suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not
true by one who does not believe it to be true. Since Yi Seo supposedly produced 500 tons of
sugarcane at the plantation as stated in an agreement she had signed. The result after a week
by Park Seroyi, the reported of plantation produced only shows 400 tons of sugarcane instead
of follows the agreement as 500 tons of sugarcanes. The contract between Park Seroyi and Yi
Seo is voidable due false information about the amounts of the plantations produced that
given by Park Seroyi.

For the conclusion, Yi Seo is able to terminate the agreement with Park Seroyi
because of Park Seroyi gave false the number of sugarcane plantation.
 B) Whether she is liable to sell the car to Hyun Yi.

Whether Yi Seo is liable to sell the car to Hyun Yi?

The contract applicable is Contract Act 1950 Section 10 (1) provide that all
agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to the
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void. In this case, the defendant is Yi Seo meanwhile Hyun Yi as plaintiff.

The relevant section in this situation is Section 5 (1) of Contract 1950 stated that A
proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete
as against the proposer, but not afterwards. In this case of Bryve V Tienhoven, the defendants
wrote a letter, on October 1, to the plaintiffs offering the sale of 1000 boxes of tin plates. The
defendant was based in Cardiff and the plaintiff was based in New York, and letters took
around 10-11 days to be delivered. The plaintiffs received this letter on October 11 and
accepted it on the same day by telegram, as well as by letter on October 15. However, on
October 8, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiffs which withdrew their offer and this
arrived with the plaintiff on October 20. The plaintiffs claimed for damages for the non-
delivery of the tin plates. Court held: there was a contract between the parties because the
Plaintiff had already accepted the offer on 11th of October when the telegram was sent. Letter
of revocation reached the acceptor (Plaintiff) after the acceptor accepted the proposal.

Refer back on the situation given whereby, Yi Seo also wish to sell her father Toyota
Vellfire to her friend Hyun Yi. On Monday, she proposed to Hyun Yi that she would sell the
Vellfire for RM200,000. Hyun Yi was very pleased and assured Yi Seo that she was
interested. Yi Seo told Hyun Yi that she assumed Hyun Yi wants to purchase the car unless
she hears otherwise by Saturday morning. On Thursday, Hyun Yi put a letter in the post
addressed to Yi Seo informing her that she accepts Yi Seo’s proposal to sell the Vellfire for
RM200,000. On Friday, Yi Seo changed her mind and now wished to revoke her proposal to
Hyun Yi. She mailed a letter via express mail informing Hyun Yi that she wished to
withdraw her proposal as she managed to obtained a better offer for the Vellfire. Hyun Yi
received the letter from Yi Seo on Monday the following week. There was a contract between
the parties because the plaintiff had already accepted the offer in the post to buy the car on
Thursday. According to Section 5 (1) a proposal may be revoked at any time before the
communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. The
letter of revocation by the defendant is afterwards on Friday which is after the day before
plaintiff was already accepted the proposal on Thursday. This result will bring the plaintiff is
unable to revoked her proposal after at the moment when the defendants already accepted the
proposal.

For the conclusion, Yi Seo is unable to revoked her proposal to Hyun Yi. Therefore,
Yi Seo must liable to sell the car to Hyun Yi