Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

PART C. (a) One year has elapsed since the marriage of Ahmad and Siti.

To date, Ahmad has not made any attempt to transfer the apartment to Siti. Recently Siti was

pressured by her mother who wanted Ahmad to


fulfill his promise.

Is Siti entitled to enforce the above


promise?

ISSUE :
Whether Ahmad is bound to his

promise to transfer the ownership the


apartment to Siti after marriage?

INTRODUCTION :
The general rule is that an agreement without

consideration is void.
Contract arises upon executed consideration.
A consideration is executed when an act is performed

in return to a promise.

LAWS :

Consideration Sec 2 (d) CA


An act or abstinence or promise by the promisee or any other person, as required by the promisor in return for his promises.

Exceptions to the general rule, which the contract is valid

and binding even though there is no consideration in the agreement


Sec 26 (a) CA : contract made on account of natural love

and affection
Valid and binding even though without consideration

Validity of this contract is dependent upon the following

conditions :
1.

It is expressed in writing (in reasonable form)


Queck Poh Guan v Quick Awang

Held : The transfer of the land was a gift from the deceased mother to the defendant on account of natural love and affection 2. It must be registered; if there is any law requiring such registration - Queck Poh Guan v Quick Awang 3. It is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in near relation to each other

Sec 26 (a) provides one of the exceptional cases in which consideration is dispensed with. It allows any agreement expressed in writing and registered

under the law for the time being in force (if any)
for the registration for such document and is

made on account of natural love and affection


between the parties standing in a near relation.

APPLICATION :
In the situation between Ahmad and Siti, we can say

that they have established a near relationship as they are married. Ahmads promise to transfer the apartment to Siti was made on account of natural love and affection between spouses. However, Sec 26 (a) CA requires Ahmad to express his promise in writing, which may be in any reasonable form. The promise was made verbally, thus the promise was not made into black and white. Furthermore, the law requires Ahmad to register his promise that he made to Siti in order for it to be in force. But, Ahmad did not register his promise.

CONCLUSION :
In order for Ahmad to be bounded to his promise to

transfer the ownership the apartment to Siti, he must fulfill the three conditions stated in Sec 26 (a) CA.
Fulfilling only 1/3 of the conditions, it is safe to say that

Siti cannot enforce the promise that was made by Ahmad.

Part C. (b)

Issue: Whether Ahmad is entitled to claim back his


10% deposit from JHM Supplier and revoke the offer.

Law:
1) Section 2(b) Contracts Act 1950. According to this section, if the offeree (to whom the offer is made) agrees or accepts the offer made by the offeror, there is acceptance to such offer. Once there is an acceptance, an agreement between the parties is created. A contract exists and it is binding upon the parties.

2) Section 7 (a) This section is about the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. The term absolute and unqualified means that, the acceptance must be made without any condition or qualification. The acceptance must be made exactly on the same term of the offer, without any modification.
Any modification of the terms of the offer amounts to

counter-offer- a rejection of the original offer, and therefore, there is no valid acceptance exists, which can make the contract become binding.

3) -

Case: Malayan Flour Mills Bhd v Saw Eng Chee (Administrator of the estate of Saw Cheng Chor, deceased) & Anor This case applied the principle deduced from the leading case, Hyde v Wrench. In this case, the plaintiffs managing director, Teh Liang Teik had in fact taken upon himself not only to vary the term but also subject to matter of the original offer. Dato Kang Hwee Gee viewed that, by doing so, he had in fact made a counter-offer, the effect of which was to divert the mind of Saw Eng Chee away from his original telex offer. This effect as if he, plaintiff had withdrawn the offer.

Application:
JHM Supplier made the offer, and Ahmad accepted

the offer when he deposited 10% of the purchase price into JHM Supplier account.

According to Section 2(b) CA 1950- Once there is an

acceptance, an agreement between the parties is created. A contract exists and it is binding upon the parties. When Ahmad deposited the money, it shows that, there is an acceptance made. 10% of the purchase price can be considered as the term in the agreement.

JHM Supplier would like to replace Ahmads order with

similar package from Dubai. This shows that JHM supplier modified the agreement. Section 7(a) CA 1950 states that the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. Any modification of the terms of the offer amounts to counter-offer- a rejection of the original offer. And there is no valid acceptance exists.
Chee (Administrator of the estate of Saw Cheng Chor, deceased) & Anor, the plaintiffs managing director, Teh Liang Teik had in fact taken upon himself not only to vary the term but also subject to matter of the original offer. Dato Kang Hwee Gee viewed that, by doing so, he had in fact made a counter-offer.

As referred to case Malayan Flour Mills Bhd v Saw Eng

Therefore, there is no valid acceptance exists, which can make the contract become binding.

Conclusion:
JHM Supplier is considered as making a new offer and the previous offer made with Ahmad is void. Ahmad is entitled to get back his 10% deposit of the purchasing price and to revoke his offer.

PART C (c)

ISSUE: Whether JHM is bound to fulfill the service


of transportation of furniture to Ahmad.

LAW:
PROVISION:

CA Section 2 (b) when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise

Section 2(b) ;

according to this section, if the offeree agrees or accepts the offer made by the offeror, the re is acceptance to such offer. And once an acceptance is made, it creates an agreement. Thus, a contract exists and it is binding/valid.

SECTION 7(a);

Conditions: Acceptance must be ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED. Acceptance must be made without conditions or qualifications

Acceptance must be made on the exact term without modifications Any modification made- counter offer (rejection of original offer)- NOT VALID

EXECPTION;

IF counter offer accepted/agreed upon by the offeror, the terms in the original offer become void and a new contract is formed.

CASE;

> -

CASE: Hyde v Wrench (1840) 6th June- D offered to sell farm to P for $1000 8th June- P made counter offer ($950) (in reply) D said no 27th June- P accepts the original offer of D D refuse to follow back the original offer P sued- contract made between them

HELD: No acceptance occurred. Ps letter (8th June) has rejected the original offer. Counter offer made when P change the original price.

APPLICATION;
It is clear enough that Ahmad needs to follow the

terms given by JHM as he agreed to accept the new replacement of the original offer A new contract has been form as soon as Ahmad agreed for the replacement. Therefore, modifications made has to be fulfilled and done

CONCLUSION;
JHM is not bound to transport the furniture to Ahmad

because Ahmad accepted the new counter offer by them which includes new conditions and terms