Scribd
Upload
1K views3 pages

Test Law240

This document contains a summary of two contract law cases. For the first case, the document concludes that Qayyum can purchase 10 packets of brown sugar from Suka Suki Supermarket based on the supermarket's public offer and no contract exists between Qayyum and the manager. For the second case, the document concludes that no contract exists for Mee Loo to purchase the house from Koo Pi because Koo Pi did not accept Mee Loo's offer by remaining silent. Therefore, Mee Loo has no right to buy the house from Koo Pi.

Uploaded by

Noor Syazani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views3 pages

Test Law240

This document contains a summary of two contract law cases. For the first case, the document concludes that Qayyum can purchase 10 packets of brown sugar from Suka Suki Supermarket based on the supermarket's public offer and no contract exists between Qayyum and the manager. For the second case, the document concludes that no contract exists for Mee Loo to purchase the house from Koo Pi because Koo Pi did not accept Mee Loo's offer by remaining silent. Therefore, Mee Loo has no right to buy the house from Koo Pi.

Uploaded by

Noor Syazani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Noor Syazani Bt Noor Nasir – 2019448276

RAC1204F

LAW240 TEST 1

Question 1

Issue

Whether there is a contract between Qayyum and the manager of Suka Suki Supermarket?

Whether Qayyum can purchase the packets of brown sugar?

Principles

The relevant law that can be applied to the issue is proposal under Section 2 (a) of the Contract
Act 1950 which provides 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. The type of proposal under Section 2 (a) is a general
proposal whereby the proposal is made to the ‘whole world’, particularly seen in the cases of
rewards and other public advertisements.

The relevant cases that correspond with the issue is the Williams v Carwardine (1833). The facts
of the case states that the defendant offered a £20 reward for information leading to the discovery
of the murderer of Walter Carwardine. The plaintiff had given the information ‘to ease my
conscience and in the hope of forgiveness thereafter’. She was in fact ill and feared that she
would soon die. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the reward as she was aware of the
offer and had complied with its terms and her motives were irrelevant.

Application

First and foremost, according to the principle under Section 2 (a) of the Contract Act 1950, the
offer made by Suka Suki Supermarket is known publicly by their customers. Therefore, the
customers may buy the packets of brown sugar as much as they like according to the offer made
by the supermarket.

Secondly, according to the Williams v Carwardine (1833) case, Qayyum can purchase the
packets of brown sugar as the offer made by Suka Suki Supermarket to all of their customers
states that a packet of brown sugar will be sold for RM3.50 each. The offer did not state it is only
applicable to only five packets of brown sugar per customer. Therefore, the manager of the
supermarket cannot refuse to sell the products to Qayyum.

Decision

In conclusion, Qayyum is able to buy the ten packets of brown sugar according to the proposal
principle under Section 2 (a) of the Contracts Act 1950 and there is no contract between Qayyum
and the manager of Suka Suki Supermarket.
Question 2

Issue

Whether there is a contract between Mee Loo and Koo Pi?

Whether Mee Loo has the right to buy the house?

Principles

The relevant law that can be applied to the issue is acceptance under Section 7 (b) of the Contract
Act 1950 which conveys that the acceptance may “be expressed in some usual and reasonable
manner, unless the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal
prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner,
the proposer may within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated with him, insist
that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise, but if he fails to
do so, he accepts the acceptance.

The relevant cases that correspond with the issue is the Fraser v Everett (1889). It was held that
there was no rule of law saying that “silence gives consent” applicable to mercantile contracts.

Application

First and foremost, according to the principle under Section 7 (b) of the Contract Act 1950, Mee
Loo had wanted to buy the house advertised for sale in the local website and asked the advertiser,
Koo Pi through texting. Unfortunately for Mee Loo, Koo Pi chose to ignore Mee Loo and
therefore had no intention of accepting Mee Loo as a buyer and instead chose to sell the house to
Nes Loo.

Secondly, according to the Fraser v Everett (1889) case, Mee Loo cannot assume Koo Pi’s
silence as an acceptance to selling the house to Mee Loo. Since Koo Pi did not answer Mee
Loo’s text message, it means that Koo Pi did not want to sell the house to Mee Loo.

Decision

In conclusion, there was no contract between Mee Loo and Koo Pi as Koo Pi did not agree to sell
the house to Mee Loo under Section 7 (b) of the Contracts Act 1950. Therefore, Mee Loo has no
right to buy the house as Koo Pi had sold it to Nes Loo.

You might also like