ABBL 3033 BUSINESS LAW

YEAR 2 SEMESTER 2
DIPLOMA STUDIES IN MARKETING

Tutorial Class: 2DMK1

Tutor: Miss Venice Choo
Date of Submission: 13th December 2016.
Total Words Count: 4898
Page of contents : 13pages ( From page 2-14)

[GROUP MEMBER ]
NAME STUDENT ID
Kit Jing Yi 15PBD06123
KHOO YEE HANG 15PBD03157
LAU MIN XUE 15PBD06801
CHONG BOON YEW 15PBD06177
FANG QUN YU 15PBD06555
1|Page

Table of Content

Contents
Table of Content ........................................................................................................................................... 0

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2

CONTENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Question 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Question 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Question 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Question 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 12

References .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Plagiarism Statement .................................................................................................................................. 18

2|Page

INTRODUCTION
All of the agreements are not considered as contracts, only the agreements which are enforceable
through law are considered as a contract. According to Section 2(h) of CA 1950, a contract is an
agreement enforceable by law. Contract is an official agreement. It could be written or come
about oral. The Contracts could be written by using formal or informal terms, or thoroughly
verbal, spoken or pronounced.

In other hand, a contract is an agreement enforceable by the law betwixt two or more individual
to refrain from perform or execute some acts or to accommodate a product or service, their
intention being to form a legal relation and not simply to exchange common promise, both
having given something or having promised to contribute something of value as consideration
for any benefit or avail acquire from the agreement.

There are essentially eight elements of a contract for make it as a legal or binding document. In
order to form a contract to be enforceable, it must comprises of (i) An offer that precisely details
absolutely what will be provided (ii) Acceptance or the agreement by the other parties to the
offer conferred (iii) Consideration or the money or something that value or reasonable of
interest that exchanged among the parties in a contract (iv) Intention, intent between both
parties to implement their promises (v) Certainty, clarity or perspiculty of terms (vi)Capacity
of the parties in terms of age , psychical and mental ability or aptitude (vii) Consent, cognition
of the bodies toward the proposed contract (viii) Legality, agreement must be lawful.
3|Page

CONTENT
Question 1
An incident about Alex published an advertisement in a local magazine for sale of his car for
RM50,000. This is a contract which is fall under the invitation to treat. This is an advertisement
for bilateral contract as it is an advertisement for the sales of goods (Alex’s car), as in case
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]. Bilateral contract contain both parties to make common promises
as exchange of reward. When one of the party fails to perform their part, then the contract has
been breached (Boundy, 2010).The Contract Act 1950 does not consist of any provision
respecting the Invitation to Treat of contract, it is generally accepted that English Law is
applicable.

However, Joshua noticed the advertisement that place by Alex in the magazine, Joshua knew
that Alex’s car is worth more than the price set by Alex, He quickly called Alex to offer for buy
the car, as a General rule, acceptance is only effective when it is communicated or brought to the
notice of offeror, however, they are a lot of communication method, as the method that use by
Joshua is considered as the promise is said to be expressed because it is made in orallly, as in
Section 9. Unfortunately, Alex rejected the offer because Alex’s car was just sold to other, Alex
is revoked the offer from Joshua before communication of acceptance is completed. In this
situation, Alex who placed the advertisement for sale of his car is considered as an offeree while
Joshua who interest with Alex’s car is considered as an offeror. Offeror is a person or entity who
makes an offer to another (the offeree) to form a contract while the offeree is the one to whom an
offer is made. (Farlex, 2016) Hence, there is no acceptance and no contract between Alex and
Joshua.

To prove for above, within a Contract Law, an invitation to treat is unlike to an offer as it is
the performances inducing other parties to made or originate an offer to form a contract, and it is
not intended to be binding in the contract. An invitation to treat is a clause used in contract laws
that describe a willingness to negotiate the terms of the contract. It is the contrary of a binding
agreement, in which all parties must abide by all conditions of the contract once they have signed
it and became a valid contract. An invitation to treat must be proposed by one of the parties
which existing in an agreement, and it must be accepted by all parties before it can be containing
4|Page

in the contract. This kind of contract is most usually used when one party is advertise, selling,
displaying, auction, tender or handling goods on the side of another and wants some legitimate
leeway to deliberate offers from variety buyers rather than automatically consent to the highest
one.

In addition to that, in the Invitation to Treat, there are two types of advertisement, which
comprises of advertisement for bilateral contract and advertisement for unilateral contract. Firstly,
the advertisement for bilateral contract, it is not often offers. A bilateral contract is one where the
prominent obligation remains on both sides which an offeror makes a promise in return for a
promise by the offeree. For example, in the case Partridge v Crittenden (1968) demonstrated the
general rule which the advertisements are usually judge as an invitation to treat. In the case of
Partridge v Crittendent (1968), Partridge published in magazine ‘Quality British A.B.C.R…
where he exhibit he had Bramblefinch cocks and Branmblefinch hens, 25s each. Under the
column of ‘Classified Advertisements’ and there was no any phrase or words of ‘offers for sale
for Bramblefinch cocks and Branmblefinch hens’, to be but the advertisement itself did not make
any offer for the sale of the birds. However, another person issues a cheque to Partridge and
asked for a Branmblefinch hen. This is because of the literal rule in statutory interpretation was
put on. Partridge entreat against condemnation. He is then judge for the illegal to sell a wild live
bird that contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954. This situation was either the advertisement
was an invitation to treat of an offer for sale. In the end, the court held that the advertisement was
not an offer for sale, that is only an invitation to treat. While where the one is dealing with
advertisements, there is a business sense in they bring interpreted as an invitation to treat and it is
not considered as an offer for sale. Next, is the second type of advertisement in Invitation to
Treat, which is the advertisement for unilateral contract. However, an offer can be made in the
way of an advertisement. It is always deal with the type of contract which can normally to from
an agreement without any negotiation between offeror and offeree, the acceptance is said to be
absolute and unqualified as in Section 7 (a). Thus, the person who made the advertisement is
propose to be bound by it. Moreover, the advertisement for unilateral contract can be clarify in
the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893]. The case is demonstrated about an
advertisement promising to remunerate £100 for any consumer that bought carbolic smoke ball
and who caught influenza was held to be an offer. This is called a unilateral contract, which the
5|Page

outstanding obligation is by one side only. The plaintiff bought and used the smoke ball in the
manner prescribed and caught influenza. The plaintiff sued the defendants for £100. Thus, the
only outstanding covenant was on the defendants to perform their promise to remunerate the
£100. In this case, there was an acceptance of offer by the plaintiff’s conduct. The situation in
Carlill’s case is often considered as a unilateral contract which is regularly regarded as offer by
which the intention to be bound is derived from the fact that no any negotiation is needed.

To sum it up, according to Section 2 (b), is states that the person whom the proposal is
made signifies his assent, the proposal is said to be accepted, while in the case between Alex and
Joshua, Alex made the advertisement to the public, which is mean that, those who have the
willingness to purchase the car and can fulfill all the condition of the offer as well as first come
first serve, so that is no any contract involve and Alex will not be sued by Joshua, Alex rejected
the offer of Joshua it is because Alex’s car has just sold to other. As in Section 6 (a), the
revocation of offer must be done before the communication of acceptance is completed. This
case is considered as an advertisement for bilateral contract it is because the Alex placed an
advertisement for sale of his car for Rm50,000 in a local magazine, as in case Partridge v
Crittenden [1968]. It is not said to be an advertisement for unilateral contract because in the
advertisement that publish by Alex is no states any words that means for offer to sale.
6|Page

Question 2
Introduction the case

Vivien’s father promised to buy her a new car if Vivien could pass her driving test. She passed
her driving test but her father did not buy her the car. She decided to sue her father for breach of
contract.

No, Vivien cannot sue her father for the breach of contract. This case is under the intention to
create legal relations. Intention to create legal relations is one of the parts of elements in valid
contract. It is clarified as an intention to enter a legally binding contract. Intention to create legal
relations is one of the essential elements in formation of an agreement. This is because of the
intention to create legal relations comprises of readiness of a party to accept the legal sequences
of having entered into a contract. Intention to create legal relations is a direction of every
contracting party must have the essential intention to enter into a legally binding contract. The
existence of an agreement doesn’t mean that there are legally binding contract. This law requires
evidence that both of the parties had intention and made an agreement so it can be legally
enforceable.

In the intention, there are two rebuttable presumption of intention to create legal relation, such
as commercial or business agreement and social, domestic and family agreement. In this case
between Vivien and her father, both sides relation are parent and child so it is under the
agreements made in social, domestic or family agreement. In term of general rules of family or
domestic relations, there is no presumption to be legally binding. Otherwise, in term of exception
the presumption is rebuttable. It is also termed as informal agreements. Whatever promises made
between friends and family, the law will not recognized it. So in this case, Vivien cannot sue her
father. For family agreements, there is no intention to create legal relations as if Balfour v
Balfour.

The case Balfour v Balfour is stated the fact of this case law is that Mr. Balfour is a civil
engineer who worked for the government as director of Irrigation in Ceylon. His wife, Mrs.
Balfour is living with him and in 1915, both of them went back to England during Mr. Balfour’s
leave. Mrs. Balfour was advised to stay there by doctor because of her rheumatic arthritis and the
7|Page

jungle climate was not good for her health. Both of them are drifted apart and Mr. Balfour
promised to pay monthly maintenance to Mrs. Balfour but failed to do that. In March 1918, Mrs.
Balfour sued Mr. Balfour for not keeping up with the monthly payment.

In this case law, it is an agreement between spouses, but not in writing. The husband, also known
as defendant in this case, promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance as maintenance but in
the end the husband defaulted and the wife sued her husband for the breach of contract. The
court stated that it was not a legally enforceable agreement because the husband and wife did not
intend that both of them should be attended by legal consequences. The husband’s promise do
not reach the level of a contract. Conclusion is the wife cannot sue husband because there are no
contract made between the wife and husband.

Vivien and her father had no intention unless they are in bad relationship or Vivien’s father is
writing down and sign it as if Meritt v Meritt. The case fact is the Meritt’s had married in 1941
and they loaned some money from a bank to build their house. Mr. Meritt is the owner of the
house. But both of them shared responsibilities to pay the loan borrowed. Then, Mr. Meritt left
Mrs. Meritt and went with other woman. Mr. Meritt and the woman decided to let Ms. Meritt
continue paying the loan but in return, Mr. Meritt promised to give full ownership of the house to
Ms. Meritt. Mr. Meritt wrote a letter containing his promise, showing intention to Mrs. Meritt.
After Mrs. Meritt has been paid off all the loan, Mr. Meritt did not give his ownership of the
house for her. In the end, Ms. Meritt bought this matter to the court for a resolution.

In this Meritt v Meritt case law, it is an agreement between spouses made in writing. The
husband and wife were separated and the husband agreed to pay his wife £40 per month for the
maintenance fee. The husband also wrote out and signed in a document stated that in
consideration he will agree to transfer the property to the wife if the wife pay all the charges in
connection with the matrimonial home. But the husband failed to transfer the property to the wife.
So the wife sued the husband and the husband failed to defend himself because the court stated
that the agreement is enforceable and recognized by law. This is because the agreement was
made when both of them is not living together and the husband wrote it down and sign it,
showing intention to the wife. In conclusion, wife can sue the husband because of the breaching
of written contract.
8|Page

The case between Vivien and her father is seems like same with the natural love and affection a
valid consideration. But, it is not considered as this because based on Section 26 (a), the natural
love and affection is expressed in writing which may be in any reasonable form, it must be
registered where a law exist the registration, the parties in the contract is near relation. However,
the case between Vivien and her father is only fulfills the third condition in natural love and
affection which is the relationship of Vivien and her father is near relation. In the other hand, a
contract law which is under natural love and affection is valid although it is held without
consideration between the parties, but in the case between Vivien and her father, there are a
consideration between them (Father buy a new car for Vivien), so in this situation, it is said to be
a contract under the intention to create legal relation.

In conclusion, Vivien is unable to sue her father because it is only in the orally manners, unless
a contract is written, there is no intention to create legal relation between Vivien and her father, it
is held that not a legally enforceable agreement because Vivien and her father did not intend that
they should be attended by legal consequences.
9|Page

Question 3
An incident about Eunice, a 17 years old daughter who come from a rich family that her parent
was an affluent businessman. Eunice is currently studying in a Penang college and she bought a
car which is a luxurious Porsche that worth RM1 million last month. However, the car now had
delivered but then Eunice is not affordable to pay for the car price.

This is a contract which is fall under the capacity which is the fifth element of valid contract.
Capacity to contract is illustrated the legal competence of an individual to get into a valid
contract and it is concern with the age and mental soundness at which an individual is capable of
making a valid contract. Normally, the capacity to contract refers to the capacity to enter into a
legal agreement and the competence to execute some act. Based on Section 11 of the Contracts
Act 1950 which clarify the capacity as everyone is competent to contract who is the age of
majority according to the law which the individual is subject, and who is sound mind and is not
disqualified from contracting by any law. Sound mind is according to Section 12 of the Contracts
Act, the capability of a person in knowledge an agreement and created a rational judgement as to
its impact upon his interests and whether he is occasionally of unsound mind.

To prove what is stated above, from this incident, it mentioned that Eunice is a 17 years old girl
which means she is a minor. Minor also infant means that a person who is under the age of
majority in which one legally assumes adulthood and is legally granted rights afforded to adults
un society .Age of Majority Act 1971 said that age of majority in Malaysia is 18 years of age.
Eunice’s capacity has limitations. The general rule is all contracts entered into by a minor a void,
this is a protection given to minors as it is assumed that minors may lack judgement and may be
exploited. Besides that, according to Mohori Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose in 1903 indicated that
an infant which is age below 18 is no ability to make a valid contract. In Mohori Bibee v
Dhurmodas Ghose, it is talking about the case about the appellant in this case loan a sum of
money to the respondent, a minor, secured on a house which was leased to the appellant. The
infant , through the mother, applied for a court declaration that the lease was void, this is because
the infant had no capacity to an agreement. The court held that the contract with the minor was
void and he could not sue or be sued on any contract. In Tan Hee Juan V Teh Boon Keat (1934)
10 | P a g e

said that transfer of land executed by an infant are void. It means the general rule in Malaysia is
that contract made by infants is void. The case is talk about the plaintiff had transferred
ownership of a piece of land to the defendant. He then applied to the court for an order to set
aside the transfer. The court referred to Mohori Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose and held that the
contract was void and ownership of the land had to returned to the plaintiff. In Malaysia, The
Mohori Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose case in 1903 was followed in the case of Tan Hee Juan v The
Boon Keat in 1934. So, there is no contract at all. So, it was held that the plaintiff succeeds in his
claimed and therefore Tan Hee Juan should not have to pay back to the defendant.

In the other side, there have four exceptions to the general rule, when a minor or other person is
fulfill the condition in the General rule, the contract is said to be valid. There are the contracts for
(i) Necessaries-CA1950, (ii) Contract of scholarship-Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976,
(iii)Contracts of insurance- Insurance Act 1990 and (iv)Contracts of service of apprenticeship.

First, Necessaries refers to the things that are essential to the existence and comfort of the minor.
For example like the clothes, food, education and shelter, but the luxurious articles are be
excluded, as in Eunice’s case. Besides that, the necessaries contract is depend on the nature of
the goods or services supplied, the minor’s actual needs and his station in life and his actual
requirements at the time he makes the contract of sale and delivery. Based on the incident of
Eunice, it mentioned that Eunice bought a luxurious Porsche so it means Eunice cannot enter the
exceptions of contract for necessaries because she bought a luxurious car that are not considered
as necessaries for her because too expensive for a student. As in case Nash v Iman, states that the
fancy waist coats supplied to an infant undergraduate, the court held that the clothes are not
necessary to the minor as the minor’s father was bring the evidence that the minor already
adequately stocked with the clothes. So as in Section 69 CA, Eunice must give back the Porsche
car to the car supplier ask she cannot afford to pay for the luxury car. As in contract of necessary,
Eunice’s case is considered as void.

Second, is the Scholarship agreement, is the contract betwixt an proper authority or person, with
respect to any scholarship, award, loan, sponsorship or appointment to a course of study,
education or learning. Based on Section 4(a) CA (Amendment) 1976, stipulated that no
scholarship agreement shall be invalidated on the ground that the scholar get into the contract is
11 | P a g e

not of the age of majority. Third is the contract of insurance, the Insurance Act 1996 regulate that
the minor over age of ten but under sixteen may enter a contract, and the written assent of
parents or guardians is necessary. This is based on supposition that it is in minor’s best interest to
defend his property against accident. Last is the apprenticeship, The Children and Young Persons
(Employment) Act 1966 formulated the necessary capacity for a minor to get into a contract of
service as employees. A child ( below age 14) or young person (age 14-16) may sue under
contract of service.

To sum it up, Eunice the sound mine bought a luxurious Porsche car is void in the contract of
necessary because she is unable to pay for the price of car, she is then must give back the
Porsche car for the supplier, but she cannot only pay the reasonable price for supplier of Porsche
car because in her age, Porsche car is mean to a very expensive car to her. So, in the end, Porsche
car is not a necessary item for Eunice. She is incapable person.
12 | P a g e

Question 4
Introduction to the case

Concerning the case of the unfair division of property of Vincent (Father) to two of her daughter
which are Betty and Sandy. The story is start with Vincent has informed everyone that after he
death, his property will be inherited by both of his daughter, Sandy and Betty, his daughter is
allowed to share equally Vincent’s property. However, Vincent is an old man who had facing
some of the health problem, before he death, he is stay with his daughter who named Betty and
dependent on Betty to take care of him as well. Unfortunately, after three months, Vincent
suddenly transferred all of his property only for one of his daughter who named Betty, who is
look after and the most close to Vincent. Vincent passed away a few days ago. Hence, Sandy
who is the Vincent’s daughter is disagree with the contract between Vincent and Betty, because
Vincent had break the promise that he said to pass his property for two of his daughter, but now,
only Betty is allowed to inherit his property. Sandy claimed that the contract is voidable.

So, in this case it is regarded to the third element of contract deals with the consent or
understanding of the parties regarding the proposed contract as the promise of Vincent is
suddenly change to pass the property only for Betty, thus, it will come to an assumption that may
be Vincent is threaten by Betty based on some secret reason. Consent is means an act of
assenting to an offer, according to Section 13, two or more persons are said to be consent when
they agree or assent the similar thing in the same sense. The consent or assent of a party to an
agreement must be absolute and voluntary, it is involves identity of mind in the respect of the
contract. In English law, the consent is also called as ‘consensus-ad-idem’. While get into a
contract must include the elements of free will and great understanding of what each of the
parties is doing. When there are the necessary element of proper consent has been provided is
there an agreement that is binding among the bodies. The conclusive consequences of
implementing that there have no proper consent was involved into the contract are deal with
premeditating remedies for breach of contract.
13 | P a g e

In the case between Vincent and his two daughters, it is said to under the undue influence. Undue
influence presence where an agreement has been entered get in as an output of pressure which
fall short of amounting to duress, the body subject to the pressure may have a cause of action in
equity to require the contract set aside on the grounds of undue influence. It is accomplish where
there occurred the relationships between the individual which occurred exploitation to obtain a
dishonest and unjust benefit. The doctrine of undue influence implement to release parties from
contract not as a result of improper threats but as a result of influenced by others bodies. When a
contract is found to considerate as undue influence, it will be voidable. The contract between
Vincent and her daughters where the relations subsisting among the parties are such that one of
the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other (where Betty makes a contract with
her father whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently influenced by the factor of age,
illness, mental or bodily distress, based on the Section 16 (2) (b) and uses that position to obtain
an unfair advantage over the others (Betty get the properties of her father without sharing equally
with her sister, Sandy). As in case William V Bailey (1866), the claimant had agreed to give a
mortgage over his colliery as security for debts incurred by his son, who had forged his father’s
signature on promissory notes. The creditors had threatened that the son would be prosecuted if
the mortgage was not given. The agreement was set aside as being obtained by undue influence.

In addition to that, the undue influence is one of the factors of the consent. In a Contract Act
1950 Section 14 stated that there is a free consent. Based on Section 19 (1), Free consent is mean
to be free of consent when it is caused by Coercion (Section 15), Undue influences (Section 16),
Fraud (Section 17), Misrepresentation(Section 18) and Mistake (Section 21, 23), the agreement
becomes a contract voidable at the option of the innocent party. Free consent is means to meeting
of free mind of two parties of a contract while two parties take an understand purpose, subject
matter and term and condition in the same sense.

As what is stated above, consent is said to be free when is not caused by those element of
consents. First is coercion, is defined in the (Section 15) , the committing or threatening to
execute, any act proscribed by the Indian Penal Code 1860, or the unlawful detaining or
threatening to detain, any property to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of
any person to enter into an contract. Next is the Fraud. Based on Section 17, Fraud defined to
14 | P a g e

mean acts done with intention to deceive or induce the other party to enter into the contract, as in
Letchumy V Annamalay (1982) . There are five different kinds of fraudulent acts in Section 17,
which is the suggestion that a fact is true when it is not true, active concealment of a fact by a
person having knowledge, a promise made without any intention of performing it, any other fact
fitted to deceive and any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Besides, based on Section 18, misrepresentation means to a false statement made by one party
which induces the other party to enter into a contract. It is also means to the wrongly made either
innocently or intentionally. There are two types of misrepresentation such as Section 18(a)
innocent misrepresentation and Section 18(b) negligent misrepresentation. Section 18(a) defines
misrepresentation in a manner not warranty by the information of a person making it which is not
true, while Section 18(b) negligent misrepresentation is any breach of duty which without an
intent to deceived, gives an advantage to the person committing it as in case Hedley Byrne V
Heller & Partners. Last is a mistake. Based on Section 21 stated that such a mistake is treated as
mistake of fact and the agreement in such a case is void. As in case Raffles V Wichellhaus, while
in Section 23 stated that mistake of facts cause by one parties to the agreement, the contract is
valid as in case Tamplin V Jones.

Based on the evidence, the case between Vincent and her two daughter is said to be involved in
undue influence as it is not fulfilled the conditions of other elements such as coercion, fraud,
misrepresentation and mistake. In a conclusion, Sandy has the right to get back the half of the
properties of her father (Vincent) who is death a few days ago because the contract is voidable
which means capable of being void, a voidable contract has legal effect until avoided. Sandy
who is the innocent parties can choose to affirming or rejecting the contract, which is means that
Sandy can sue Betty to hog the whole properties of her father. This agreement is valid and
binding until the party entitled to prevent it options to do so.
15 | P a g e

References
(I) Book

• Lee Mei Pheng and Ivan Jeron Detta (2011) Business Law. Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd

• Lee Mei Pheng (2005) GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MALAYSIA LAW. 5th Ed.
Selangor Darul Ehsan: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.

• Beatrix Vohrah and Wu Min Aun (1991) The Commercial Law Of Malaysia. 2nd Ed.
Selangor Darul Ehsan: Gains Print Sdn. Bhd.

(II) Website

• Intention To Create Legal Relations And Consideration [Online]

Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/intention-to-create-

legal-relations.php

Accessed at 1 December 2016

• e-lawrecourses.co.uk (2016) Contract Consideration [Online]

Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Consideration.php

Accessed at 1 December 2016

• Intention to create legal relations [Online]

Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Intention-to-create-legal-relations.php

Accessed at 1 December 2016

• Law Notes.in (2016) Section 26 of Malaysian Contracts Act, 1950 [Online]

Available at: http://www.lawnotes.in/Section_26_of_Malaysian_Contracts_Act,_1950

16 | P a g e

Accessed at 2 December 2016

• Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421 [Online]

Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Partridge-v-Crittenden.php

Accessed at 2 December 2016

• Partridge v Crittenden [Online]

Available at: http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/partridge-v-crittenden/

Accessed at 2 December 2016

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [Online]

Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co Accessed at

2 December 2016

• INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS [Online]

Available at: https://www.google.com/#q=intention+to+create+legal+relation

Accessed at 5 December 2016

• Fandom,2012 [Online]

Available at: http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour.html

Accessed at 5 December 2016

• elawresouces.co.uk, 2012 [Online]

Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Merritt-v-Merritt.php

Accessed at 5 December 2016

• Laws, 2016 [Online]

17 | P a g e

Available at: http://contract-law.laws.com/consideration/minors

Accessed at 6 December 2016

• Authored by Rachel Wenzel, LegalMatch Legal Writer, 2014 [Online]

Available at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can-a-minor-

contract.htmlAccessed at 6 December 2016

• elawresouces.co.uk, 2012 [Online]

Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Undue-Influence.php

Accessed at 6 December 2016

• LawTeacher, 2016. consideration cases. [Online]

Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/contract-law/consideration-cases.php

Accessed at 8 December 2016

18 | P a g e

Plagiarism Statement
(i) Plagiarism Statement for Introduction and answer of Question 1

(ii) Plagiarism statement for answer of Question 2

19 | P a g e

(iii) Plagiarism Statement for answer of Question 3

(iv) Plagiarism Statement for answer of Question 4