Nov 5, 2007

Business Law Tutorial 4

1. When BOh wrote a letter to Kua on 14.10.99, offering to sell his house for RM150000, is it an offer or invitation to treat? An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act, 1950 as an undertaking by the offeror to be countractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An invitation to treat is defined as inviting the public to make an offer. In this case, it is an offer because it is made specifically to Kua only.

An offer must be clear, definite and certain-White v. Bluett. Here, it is clear, definite and certain because it is Boh's house which is identified and the amount is RM150000. The offer is bilateral because it is made specifically to Kua and only Kua can accept or reject the offer.

Under Section 4(1) of Contracts Act, 1950, the offer must be communicated- Taylor v.Laird. Here, it is communicated because Kua posted a letter accepting Boh's offer on 18.10.99. This means Kua received Boh's offer letter.

An acceptance is defined in Section 2(b) of Contracts Act, 1950 as an unconditional and unqualified assent of the offeree to all the terms of the offer-Neale v. Merrett. Here, there is an acceptance because postal rule applies.

According to Section 4(2)(a) of Contracts Act,1950, once a properly stamped and properly addressed letter of acceptance is posted into the mail box, the contract is valid, even if the letter is lost. Under Section 4(2)(b) of COntracts Act, 1950, the offeree can withdraw his acceptance , before it is received by the offeror. Here, before the letter of acceptance from Kua reached Boh on 21.10.99, Kua sent a telegram to BOh withdrawing his acceptance at 10am, which eventually received by Boh at 2pm on the same day. So, there is no contract binding BOh and Kua.

Under Section 5(1) of COntracts Act, 1950, offeror may withdraw his offer at anytime before acceptance. In this case, it is not applicable because Boh did not withdraw his offer.

In conclusion, Kua is not bound to purchase BOh's house.



2. When Chan wrote to Loh on 15.9.98 offering his CNX 230 E motor car on reasonabe price, is it an offer or invitation to treat? An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act, 1950 as an undertaking by the offeror to be countractually bound in the event of a proper acceptance by the offeree. An invitation to treat is defined as inviting the public to make an offer. In this case, it is an offer because it is made specifically to Loh only.

An offer must be clear, definite and certain - White v. Bluett. Here, it is not clear because it is Chan's motor car which is identified, but the amount is undefined.Therefore, the offer is not valid.

When Loh wrote to Chan on 17.9.98, is it an offer or invitation to treat? An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act, 1950 as stated above. An invitation to treat is defined as inviting the public to make an offer. Here, it is an offer because it is made specifically to Chan only.

An offer must be clear, definite, and certain -White v. Bluett. Here, it is clear, definite and certain because it is Chan's CNX 230 E motor car which is identified and the amount is RM 150000.

According to Section 4(1) of COntracts Act, 1950 , an offer must be communicated- Taylor v. Laird. Here, it is communicated because he has not replied Loh's letter but he has received the letter.

Acceptance is defined in Section 2(b) of Contracts Act, 1950 as unconditional and unqualified assent of the offeree to all the terms of the offer-Neale v.Merrett. Acceptance must not be mental, which means it must be communicated-Felthouse v.Bindley. Here, there is no acceptance because Chan has not replied Loh's letter.

According to Section 6 of Contracts act, 1950, offeree can reject the offer -Hyde v. Wrench, or lapse of time, of which by passage of time, death of failure to satisfy a condition. Here, The termination of offer is done through lapse of time as Chan did not reply Loh's letter by 30.9.98. Therefore, there is no contract binding Chan and Loh, which means Chan is not bound to sell the car to LOh for RM150000.


3. When Bean offered to sell a consignment of tables to Nuts for RM500, is it an offer or invitation to treat? An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act, 1950 as undertaking of the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of proper acceptance by the offeree. An invitation to treat is defined as inviting the public to make an offer. here, it is an offer because it is made specifically to Nuts only.

An offer must be clear, definite and certain -White v. BLuett. In this case, it is clear, definite and certain because it is tables which is identified and the amount is for RM500. It is a bilateral offer because it is made specifically to Nuts and only Nuts can accept or reject the offer.

According to Section 4(1) of Contracts Act, 1950, an offer must be communicated -Taylor v. Laird. Here, it is communicated as Nuts replied to buy the goods for RM450, cash on delivery, which means Nuts received Bean's letter of offer.

Acceptance is defined in Section 2(b) of Contracts Act, 1950 as unconditional and unqualified assent of the offeree to all the terms of offer -Neale v. Merrett. Acceptance must be communicated and must not be mental -Felthouse v. Bindley. Here, there is no acceptance from Nuts because Nuts has made a counter offer.

Counter offer operates as a rejection of the original offer-Hyde v. Wrench. This counter offer was not accepted by Bean because Bean does not reply Nut's offer letter. Therefore, there is no contract.

When Nuts sent a letter stating that it would pay the original asking price of RM500 for the consignment of tabes, he is actually making a new offer. An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act, 1950 as stated above.The offer is clear, definite and certain because the consignment of tables is identified and it is for RM500. It is a bilateral offer because it is made specifically to Bean and only Bean can accept or reject. The offer is communicated because Bean informed Nuts that it has run out of stock and cannot supply the goods at RM500.
There is no acceptance because Bean has run out of stock.

When Bean informs Nuts that it has run out of stock and cannot supply the goods at rm500 but it could however supply the materials for RM588, it is a new offer. It is not sure whether it is communicated and there is no acceptance from Nuts. Therefore, there is no contract binding Bean and Nuts.

In conclusion, Bean has not breached the contract as there is no contract between Bean and Nuts.


4.When Mike wrote to George on 10January 1999 offering to sell his van to George for RM40000, is it an offer or invitation to treat? An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of Contracts Act,1950 as an undertaking of the offeror to be contractually bound in the event of proper acceptance by the offeree. An invitation to treat is defined as inviting the public to make an offer. In this case, it is an offer because it is made specifically to George only.

The offer must be clear, definite and certain -White v. Bluett. Here, it is clear, definite and certain because it is Mike's van which is identified and amount is RM40000. It is a bilateral offer because it si made specifically to George and only George can accept or reject it-Boulton v. Jones.

Under Section 4(1) of contracts Act, 1950, an offer msut be communicated- Taylor v. Laird. Here, it is communicated because George wrote back to Mike on 15 January 1999. This means that he received letter of offer from Mike on 13 January 1999.

An acceptance is defined in Section 2(b) of Contracts Act, 1950 as an unconditional and unqualified assent of the offeree to all the terms of offer-Neale v. Merrett. Acceptance must not be mental and must be communicated -Felthouse v. Bindley. HOwever, there is no acceptance because George do not accept Mike's offer to sell the van for RM40000. Therefore, there is no contract between Mike and George.

When Mike replied on 20 January 1999 stating that the price of the van is fixed at Rm40000, he is making a new offer. An offer is defined in Section 2(a) of COntracts Act,1950 as stated above. The offer is clear, definite, and certain because the van is identified and it is for Rm40000. It is a bilateral offer because it is made specifically to George only.It is communicated because George received the letter on 23 January 1999 and immediately posted the letter of acceptance to Mike. There is a contract binding Mike and George as postal rule applies.

According to Section 4(2)(a) of COntracts Act, 1950, when a properly stamped, properly addressed letter of acceptance is posted, there is a contract binding both offeror and offeree, even the letter is lost. Here, the contract is established on 23 January 1999 as George posted the letter of acceptance on 23January 1999 and it has not been revoked through lapse of time under Section 6 of Contracts Act,1950, which is three days aftert 20 January 1999.

On 24 January 1999, Mike sold the van to another people, Sam. In Section 5(1) of Contracts Act, 1950, revocation of offer can be done by the offeror as long as there is no acceptance from the offeree. Here, there is a contract binding Mike and George on 23 January 1999, therefore George can definitely sue Mike for breach of contract.

4 comments:

  1. jessie11:35 PM

    Again~ really so long ~~~~ you are patient ^^
    thanks you so so much ya ~~

    ReplyDelete
  2. hey!i print tis ya?thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. haha...whatever you want to do lol...
    when you score dont you ever forget me a!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Volvo Motor Sdn Bhd advertised in the newspaper that they are selling a new 2003 model of Honda City. Upon seeing the advertisement, Awang immediately call Volvo Motor Sdn Bhd to make an appointment to view and test the car. The next day after having satisfied with the said car, Awang decides to buy it. After making payment and upon delivery of the said car to Awang, Awang discovered that the rear half of the car was part of a 2002 model. Discuss whether Awang could take action against Volvo Motor Sdn Bhd and why?

    pls post me the answer...

    ReplyDelete

Share This

Follow by Email

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...