BCL Tutorial 3 Answer

Question 1
Is there a contract between Boh and Kua? If there is an contract,an agreement which is legally binding between the parties. On 14th October 1999, Boh wrote a letter to Kua to sell his house for RM150,000.This is the first issues that we discovered that this is an offer. An offer is an undertaking by the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An offer is also call a proposal. We can prove that this an offer by according to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 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 offer is expressed in words because Boh wrote a letter to Kua in cases study (Preston Corp Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong & Ors (1982)). Besides, it also is a bilateral offer means that Joe is making an offer to a particular person in case (Powell v Lee (1980)). This offer is clear, precise, definite and complete because it is written in letter and expressed details clearly in case (Scammel v Ouston; White v Bluett). An offer is effective once it is communicated by the offeror (Boh) to the offeree (Kua) according to Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This is to give a choice to the offeree whether to accept the offer or not. In this case, Boh already became an offeror according to Section 2 (c) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that where a person making the proposal is called promisor or offeror. On 18 October 1999, Kua posted a letter accepting Boh;s offer. This is second issues occurred in this case. Kua wrote and posted a letter to accept Bohs offer, this condition indicated that it is already an acceptance according to section 2(b) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when the offeree signifies his assent to the offer, the offer is said to be accepted. The offer, when accepted, becomes a promise. The offeree is now called promisee according to section 2(c) of the Contracts Act 1950. In addition, according to Section 7 (b) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that an acceptance may be written, oral or implied by the conduct but if there is a method prescribed then it must be according to the manner prescribed by the offeror where this is already fulfilled where by Kua wrote a letter to Boh. Besides, it is also fulfilled the condition of Section 7(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 for a proposal to be changed into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified and must correspond with all the terms of the offer.Case study (Neale v Merrett). It is because Kua already accepted the condition of Boh. However, there was a termination of an offer occurred where on 20 October 1999, Kua changed his mind about buying the house and at 10.00 am on the same day, he sent a telegram to Boh withdrawing his acceptance. This is the third issues and also the main issues because this issues cause the conflict between Boh and Kua. This issue had applied the postal rules according to Section 4(2) of Contracts Act, 1950, when a properly stamped and properly addressed letter of acceptance is posted into the mail box, it is deemed received by the offeror, and there is a

contract between offeror and offeree, even though the mail is lost in case (Ignatious v Bell). It is because Kua had sent telegram to Boh, where Kua informed Boh to withdraw his acceptance. However, Boh received Kuas aforesaid telegram at 2.00pm on 20 October 1999 and also Boh received Kuas aforesaid letter on 21 October 1999. Is there a contract between Boh and Kua? The answer is there is no contract between Boh and Kua because Kua may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the letter communicating it reaches Joe, but not afterwards which according to section 5 (2) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that an acceptance may be revoked at any time before communication of the acceptance is complete as against the offeree, but not afterwards. In conclusion, there is no contract between Boh and Kua because Kua may revoke his acceptance at any time before or at the moment when the letter communicating it reaches Joe, but not afterwards.

Question 2
On 15 September 1998, Chan wrote to Loh as follow; I offer my CNX 230 E motor car to you for a reasonable price. Please reply at once stating your price. This is the first issues that we discovered that this is an invitation to treat (ITT). An ITT is not a proposal but could be regarded as mere communication passed at the stage of negotiation. ITT of preliminary negotiations case (Harvey v Facey). On 17 September 1998, Loh wrote to Chan as follows; My price for your CNX 230 E is RM 150,000. This is the second issues that we discovered that this is an offer. An offer is an undertaking by the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An offer is also call a proposal. We can prove that this an offer by according to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 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 offer is expressed in words because Loh wrote a letter to Chan in cases study (Preston Corp Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong & Ors (1982)). Besides, it also is a bilateral offer means that Loh is making an offer to a particular person in case (Powell v Lee (1980)). This offer is clear, precise, definite and complete because it is written in letter and expressed details clearly in case (Scammel v Ouston; White v Bluett). An offer is effective once it is communicated by the offeror (Loh) to the offeree (Chan) according to Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This is to give a choice to the offeree whether to accept the offer or not. In this case, Chan already became an offeror according to Section 2 (c) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that where a person making the proposal is called promisor or offeror. On 17 September 1998, Loh wrote to Chan as follows; If I do not hear from you by 30 September 1998, I will assume that the car is mine. However, to date Chan has not replied Lohs letter. This is the last issues and main that we discovered in this case because this issues cause the conflict between Loh and Chan. Is there a contract between Loh and Chan? The answer is no contract between Loh and Chan because an acceptance is only effective when it is

communicated or brought to the notice of the person making the offer with case (Felthouse v Bindley). Besides, silence cannot be prescribed as a manner of acceptance with case (Fraser v Everett) and (Felthouse v Bindley) but offeree may stipulate his silence shall constitute an acceptance. In addition, according to section 7(a) of contract Act 1950 provides that for a proposal to be changed into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified and must correspond with all the terms of the offer with case ( Neale v Merett). In conclusion, there is no contract between Loh and Chan and also Chan is not bound to sell the car to Loh for RM150, 000 because silence cannot be prescribed as a manner of acceptance.

Question 3
On the 1st June 2004, Albert advertised his piano for sale in the local newspaper for RM 3000. Miss Tan saw the advertisement and called him up. She wanted to buy the piano for RM 2500. Albert told her to come and see the piano for herself. This is the first issues that we discovered that this is an invitation to treat (ITT). An ITT is not a proposal but could be regarded as mere communication passed at the stage of negotiation. ITT of advertisement case (Harris v Nickerson) and (Majumder v A-G of Sarawak). On the 4th June 2004, Miss Tan came to see the piano. She really liked it and offered to buy it for RM2500. This is the second issues that we discovered that this is an offer. An offer is an undertaking by the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An offer is also call a proposal. We can prove that this an offer by according to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 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 offer is expressed in orally because normally bidding is using orally method to operate. Besides, it also is a bilateral offer means that Mona is making an offer to a particular person in case (Powell v Lee (1980)). This offer is clear, precise, definite and complete because it is written in letter and expressed details clearly in case (Scammel v Ouston; White v Bluett). An offer is effective once it is communicated by the offeror (Miss Tan) to the offeree (Albert) according to Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This is to give a choice to the offeree whether to accept the offer or not. In this case, Miss Tan already became an offeror according to Section 2 (c) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that where a person making the proposal is called promisor or offeror. Albert said that he would sell it for RM2900. This is the third issues occurred in this case where it is a counter offer. A counter offer operates as rejection of the original offer. However, Miss Tan said that she will think about it. This is the fourth issues that we discovered in this case where there is no acceptance in this case because acceptance is only effective when it is communicated or brought to the notice of the person making the offer with case (Felthouse v Bindley).

In the meantime, Ahmad came to see the piano and agreed to buy it for RM3000. This is the fourth issues that we discovered that this is an offer. An offer is an undertaking by the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An offer is also call a proposal. We can prove that this an offer by according to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 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 offer is expressed in orally because normally bidding is using orally method to operate. Besides, it also is a bilateral offer means that Mona is making an offer to a particular person in case (Powell v Lee (1980)). This offer is clear, precise, definite and complete because it is written in letter and expressed details clearly in case (Scammel v Ouston; White v Bluett). An offer is effective once it is communicated by the offeror (Ahmad) to the offeree (Albert) according to Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This is to give a choice to the offeree whether to accept the offer or not. In this case, Ahmad already became an offeror according to Section 2 (c) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that where a person making the proposal is called promisor or offeror. However, he wanted to pay RM1000 first and later the balance of RM2000 a month later since he doesnt have enough money. Albert refuses to accept Ahmads payment mode. So there is no acceptance of Albert because acceptance is only effective when it is communicated or brought to the notice of the person making the offer with case (Felthouse v Bindley). Finally, on the 6th June 2004, Alberts neighbor, David wanted to buy the piano for RM2800. This is the sixth issues that we discovered that it is an offer. An offer is also call a proposal. We can prove that this an offer by according to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 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 offer is expressed in orally because normally bidding is using orally method to operate. Besides, it also is a bilateral offer means that Mona is making an offer to a particular person in case (Powell v Lee (1980)). This offer is clear, precise, definite and complete because it is written in letter and expressed details clearly in case (Scammel v Ouston; White v Bluett). An offer is effective once it is communicated by the offeror (David) to the offeree (Albert) according to Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This is to give a choice to the offeree whether to accept the offer or not. In this case, Ahmad already became an offeror according to Section 2 (c) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that where a person making the proposal is called promisor or offeror. Finally, Albert agreed to sell it to him. This the final issues that we discovered that this is an acceptance according to to section 2(b) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that when the offeree signifies his assent to the offer, the offer is said to be accepted. The offer, when accepted, becomes a promise. The offeree is now called promisee according to section 2(c) of the Contracts Act 1950.

In addition, according to Section 7 (b) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that an acceptance may be written, oral or implied by the conduct but if there is a method prescribed then it must be according to the manner prescribed by the offeror where this is already fulfilled where by Albert orally promise David. Besides, it is also fulfilled the condition of Section 7(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 for a proposal to be changed into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified and must correspond with all the terms of the offer.Case study (Neale v Merrett). It is because Albert already accepted the condition of David. In conclusion, there is a contract between David and Albert.