Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

QUESTION 1

Sykt. Gandum produces festive cookies called Kuih Aneka Gaya (KAG). From November 2012, the following super offer was places on KAG packets: Collect 15 KAG packet tops and send them to us. We will send you a free Noktah VCD by Hazama. The offer ends on 1st May 2013. However, in December 2012, the company placed an advertisement in several national newspapers stating that because of unexpected high response, their stock of Hazamas VCD had run out and the offer was cance lled. Hazim who had already collected 12 KAG packet tops did not see the advertisement and continued collecting them. On 20th January 2013, posted the 15 packet tops to Sykt. Gandum asking for his VCD. His letter did not reach the company. Advice Hazim.

Whether there is a contract between Sykt Gandum and Hazim? Section 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. An agreement can only be considered as a contract if it is accompanied by other elements such as offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, intention to create legal relations, certainty and free consent. Hence, agreements which may be lacking in certain elements would not amount to a valid contract which is enforceable by the law. According to the issue above, we can defined offer as stated in section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950 as when Sykt Gandum signifies to public their willingness to do or to abstain from doing, with a view to obtaining the assent from public to act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. An offer is a promise or proposal by one person to another person with the intention to create a legally binding relationship. Next, the offer made by Sykt Gandum to public is a general offer. As it is made generally to public, anyone can take place to accept the offer. Here, in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, where the manufacturers of a smoke ball had advertised about their smoke ball to public that can cure all kind of ailments at the time of an influenza epidemic arises and convincingly stated if anybody still suffered from the influenza would be paid 100. They also advertised that 1,000 deposit with Alliance Bank, showing their sincerity to help. Mrs. Carlill that used that product still suffering the influenza and claimed the money but argued by the company saying the advertisement does not amount to an offer which could turn into a contract by acceptance. However the court held the advertisement created a binding obligation. Other than that, section 9 of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words the promise is said to be express, however if the proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied, In this case, when Sykt Gandum placed a super offer on KAG packets it is said to be express.

Moreover, based on section 4(1) of the Contract Act 1950, it stated that, the communication of the proposal is complete when it comes to knowledge of Hazim. According to this case, communication of the offer is complete when Hazim knows that Sykt Gandum is made super offer of collecting 15 KAG packet tops and will receive Noktah VCD by Hazama. Here case of Taylor v Laird, were Taylor were engaged to command Laird ship but later he quit the course of the expedition without Laird knowledge. He then claimed to be paid for the service rendered but the court held that he could not recover as Laird never had the opportunity of accepting or refusing the services while they were being rendered. Other than that is case R v Clarke were the offer are made to pay a reward for any information leading to arrest and conviction of persons responsible for the murder of two police officers. Mr Clarke was arrested and then he gave information which led to the arrest of another person convicted for the crime. Clarke was released as he was not found guilty and he then brought an action to claim for the reward. The court held that, Clarke failed in action because he gave the information only to release himself and not in respond to the offer of reward. Furthermore, according to section 2(b) of the Contracts Act 1950, the proposal is said to be accepted when Hazim made signifies his assent thereto. In order to form a valid contract, once an offer or proposal is made by the Sykt Gandum there must be acceptance from the Hazim. Acceptance is where the Hazim approves of the offer or agrees to adopt the conditions of the offer. Hazim has already collected 15 KAG packet tops and send on 20th January 2013 to Sykt Gandum. Based on section 7(b) of the Contracts Acts 1950 provides that in order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. This concerns the mode of acceptance and the time of acceptance. However, if the offer does not specify any time of acceptance, than the offeree must do so in a usual and reasonable manner depending on the circumstances and norm of practice. In the case of Sykt Gandum and Hazim when Sykt Gandum posted an offer to public, Hazim has posted his 15 packet

tops to Sykt Gandum on 20th January 2013 and he is made acceptance within the time as provide by Sykt Gandum. Case to support the above arguments is Fraser v Everett where the acceptance for sale and purchase of certain shares was expected to be mailed at about the end of March. However, it was mailed only in early of April and it was held that the acceptance was not made within a reasonable time because shared were fluctuating nature and time was essence. In case of Routledge v Grant was defendant offered to sell a house to the plaintiff and the acceptance must be taking within 6 weeks. Section 4(2) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that the communication of acceptance is complete when it is put in a course of transmission to Sykt Gandum, so as to be out of the power of Hazim and when it comes to the knowledge of Sykt Gandum. When an acceptance is made by posted or mailed, the acceptance will only come to the knowledge Sykt Gandum when he gets or received the letter of acceptance. However, when the letter of acceptance is posted, it binds the Sykt Gandum from the time that it is posted and not when it is received. This is an exception to rule. According to this case, when Hazim posted his 15 packet tops on 20th January 2013 is actually has bound to the contract. In case of Entores v Miles Far East Corporation, it was held that when a contract is made by post, the acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is put into the post box. Other than that is case of Ignatius v Bell where the defendant offered to sell his land to the plaintiff and the acceptance must be made before the date given. The plaintiff had sent letter of acceptance within the date given, however the defendant just receive the letter after the date ended. The court held that, a contract is created once the letter was posted and hence the defendant was bound by the contract. According to the section 5(1) of the Contracts Act 1950, provides that a proposal may be revoked of any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. Sykt Gandum can revoke before Hazim make an acceptance. According to this case, in December 2012, the company placed an advertisement in several national newspapers stating that because of unexpected high

response, their stock of Hazamas VCD had run out and revoked the offer. Hazim who did not see the advertisement had continued collecting. Sykt Gandum cannot revoke their offer to Hazim as Hazim already make an acceptance on 20th January 2013 using post asking for his VCD and according to postal ruled, when the letter are post there is are binding contract although Hazim are not aware with it. In case of Bryne Co. v Van Tienhoven & Co., defendant had offered to sell to plaintiff 1000 boxes of tinplated through post. Past day later defendant post a letter of revocation to the plaintiff, however plaintiff received letter of offer first and sent a telegram on the same day. A few days later, plaintiff received letter of revocation from the defendant but it is too late as the plaintiff had make an acceptance and there were contract between them. Another case is Henthorn v Fraser were defendant offered in writing to sell several house to plaintiff. Defendant has sent letter of revocation but the plaintiff had received the letter after he had make an acceptance. The revocation was not effective as it was only communicated after the acceptance letter was posted. According to the section 6(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, saying that if the offeror decides to revoke his offer by giving a notice, the revocation of an offer would only be effective after the notice of revocation had come to the actual knowledge of the offeree. Sykt Gandum had actually making revocation in December 2012 by placing advertisement in several national newspaper that their stock of Hazamas VCD had run out but not reaching the knowledge of Hazim because he did not see the advertisement. As stated in section 8, performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal. This is where the offer contains certain stipulations or conditions to be fulfilled by the offeree in order to form an acceptance. It is also stated that performance would be sufficient even without actual communication. Hazim has collected 15 packet tops and posted to Sykt Gandum before 1st May 2013. It shows that Hazim had accepted the companys offer by fulfilling their conditions without communicating. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Mrs Carlill had fulfilled the mode of acceptance by purchasing and using the product manufactured by the defendant over a certain period. The court held that

the acceptance is valid even though there was no communication made. Another case is Errington v Errington where the father is refused to transfer the house to his son and daughter-in-law even thought they had paid off the instalment of the house. It was held that the acceptance valid once the son start to pay the instalment although the son did not verbally communicated. Lastly, the advertisement is not an invitation to treat but it was an offer because it contain condition which lead to reward. Sykt Gandum had placed super offer on KAG packets said that anyone who collect 15 KAG packet tops will receive a free Noktah VCD by Hazama. This show that the advertisement is an offer and not invitation to treat because it give reward to the public who fulfilled the conditions. Based on the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. where the defendant placed an advertisement which amount to an offer because the nature of the nature of the advertisement contains condition, the fulfilment which amounting to an acceptance. Hence, there was a valid contract. In conclusion, there is a contract between Sykt Gandum and Hazim as the contract has been valid seems Hazim has posted 15 packet tops on 20th January 2013. Even though the contract is been revoked but did not reach to Hazim knowledge, there is still an acceptance made within the period.