Contracts - cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Facts Judgement Affin Credit (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Yap Yuen Fui [offer & acceptance]Appellant let a motorbike to the respondent. Respondent went overdue with the payment and the motorbike was repossessed. Appellant sought for the sought for the outstanding balance and the respondent de...

Description

Case

Facts

Judgement

Affin Credit (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Yap Yuen Fui [offer & acceptance]

Appellant let a motorbike to the respondent. Respondent went overdue with the payment and the motorbike was repossessed. Appellant sought for the sought for the outstanding balance and the respondent denied the claim. Defendant gave plaintiff an invitation letter to make a booking--------

Hire-purchase agreement is void because it lacks offer and acceptance

Nai Yau Juu v Pasdec Corporation Sdn. Bhd, & Anor [unilateral contract]

R v Clarke [communication of proposal]

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. [communication of proposal, ItCLR] Gibson v Manchester City Council [invitation to buy ITT]

Byrne v Tienhoven [revocation of proposal]

Circular stating that ‘we are instructed to offer to the trade for sale certain described goods’ was merely an ITT and not an offer capable of acceptance. The Australian Gov offered reward for Claim failed because the info leading to murderers. X and reward was not in his Clarke were arrested but Clarke gave mind and he only want to info leading to arrest of Y and Clarke clear his name at the time was freed. Clarke claimed the reward An offer can be made to Defendant manufactured a smoke ball to cure flu and offered to pay a the world large. Thus, sum to anyone who still catches flu there is contract and the after using it. The plaintiff caught flu plaintiff can claim reward after using it and claimed for reward the Manchester city council wrote to Ex-council’s letter was at Gibson that the council ‘may be most an invitation to treat. prepared to sell’ the council house to –‘…’,’…’ him and invited him ‘to make formal application to buy’. Gibson made a formal application. Before processing application the control of the council changed hands to new council and the new council refused to complete the sale. There was contract as the Defendant sent letter of offer to sell tinplate to plaintiff on 1st Oct. revocation was not Defendant later posted revocation on effective until 20th Oct and 8th Oct. Plaintiff received offer on 11th plaintiff had accepted the

and accepted on that day and received revocation on 20th only Defendant propose to buy shares in Ramsgate Voctoria June and paid deposit. The company Hotel Co. v informed him that the shares are only Montefiore available in Nov and he must pay the [revoke - lapse of outstanding balance time] Aberfoyle Plantations Vendor sell estate with condition of Ltd v Khaw Bian him obtaining lease renewal. Vendor failed to obtain and purchaser Cheng claimed return of deposit. [revoke - failure to condition precedent] Defendant offer to sell estate for Hyde v Wrench E1000 but plaintiff counter offered to [counter offer] but for E950. Defendant refused and plaintiff wanted to return to previous offer. Customers at drug store take items Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots from shelves and place at counter which a registered pharmacist will Cash Chemists monitor. Defendants charged for (Southern) Ltd selling listed poisons without [goods on display] supervision of registered pharmacists. Defendant charged with selling flick Fisher v Bell knife which was illegal. [goods on display] Plaintiff applied for post of assistant Coelho v Public Services Commission passport officer as advertised on newspaper and accepted. Later he [advertisement] was terminated due to probation. Partridge v Crittenden [advertisement] Gibson v Manchester City Council [ITT]

Ad showing bramble finch cocks and hens for 25 cents. Advertisers charged with selling illegal wild birds. City council said that they may be prepared to sell council house to Gibson and he must make formal application. Gibson applied but the council changed hands and refused before the transaction is complete.

offer before that Refusal justifies because the period between June Nov unreasonable

Purchaser entitled to return of deposit since vendor failed to fulfil the condition No acceptance as plaintiff had rejected and made counter offer

The display was only ITT and only the customer make offer thus owner did not make unlawful sale

He is not guilty as display of article is ITT Ad on newspaper was only ITT and applications were offers. Acceptance must be unqualified and termination is unlawful There is no offer of sale unless come from manufacturers The ex council’s letter was ITT and the formal application is the proposal

Plaintiff discussed with his nephew to purchase his horse. He said he considered the offer accepted if no reply came. Nephew was busy at the auction and the auctioneer sold the horse by mistake. Defendant gave option to buy land Low Kar Yit & Ors v subject to formal contract to be Mohd Isa & Anor [acceptance absolute drawn up and agreed upon parties and approval by court. Plaintiff & unqualified] exercised the option but defendant refused to sign agreement. Defendant rejected plaintiff’s offer to Hernthorn v Fraser [acceptance absolute buy the house and made another offer to sell and give him a period to & unqualified] consider. However, another buyer contracted with defendant and he revoked plaintiff’s offer. Defendant had already sent his though plaintiff did not receive the revocation until defendant receives plaintiff’s acceptance. Guha Majmuder v RE Defendant accepted plaintiff’s offer to buy his orchid plantation. The parties Donough are still negotiating about the [Negotiation] property. Defendant denied he had to go on with the sale. Consideration

There was no acceptance and plaintiff has no right to impose sale by silence

Appellant agreed to sell his house to respondent. An agreement written on a scrap paper, “I agree to sell my house at $26000 3 months from now.” Appellant later refused to sell the house. Respondent sent notice that appellant had trespassed the land. Oral agreement made between A&R in which R agreed to transfer land to A by paying RM 500.

There is valid contract as there’s consideration for each other.

Felthouse v Bindley [silence ≠ agreement]

K Mugugesu v Nadarajah [consideration]

Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock [adequate consideration]

The option is conditional upon a formal contract and there was no concluded contract between both parties. Communication of acceptance was complete as soon as it was posted.

Agreement not enforceable because parties are still negotiating

Agreement void due to inadequate consideration

Ventaka Chinnaya v Verikatara’ma’ya [adequate consideration] Gov of M’sia v Gurcharan Singh [minor-scholarship]

Rajeswary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors [minor-marriage] Capacity Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas [Minor x competent to contract-Capacity] Free Consent Sim Thong Realthy Sdn Bhd v The Kim Dar [elements of misrep.]

A sister agreed to pay annuity to her brothers who provided no consideration. Mother had given the sister a land specifying that the sister must pay annuity to the brother. Defendant sent to England to study on scholarship from plaintiff and refused to pay back. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract but defendant claimed he was minor when he signed the contract Following customary practice, plaintiff entered marriage agreement with defendant. Later, defendant repudiated promise.

Sister liable to pay annuity as there’s consideration even though it’s not from the acceptor

Respondent who was a minor mortgaged property to appellant to secure a loan. Minor’s mother took legal action to invalidate contract.

Contract is void as a minor is not competent to contract

Agreement of scholarship enforceable even when entered by minor

Marriage contract entered by minor is enforceable

The representation must be an unambiguous, false statement of fact; The representation must be addressed to the party misled; and The representation materially induces the contract.

Intention to create legal relation The husband went to work in Ceylon and agreed to pay his wife £30 per month. Later, they get divorced and husband did not pay the money. Choo Tiong Hin & ors Plaintiff adopted 5 sons-live in farm. v Choo Hock Swee Family quarrelled and plaintiff left. [father-adopted son] Plaintiff later claimed possession of the farm. Defendants claim there’s contract where agreed to be adopted

Balfour v Balfour [husband-wife no ItCLR]

No ItCLR because there’s no contract

No ItCLR when plaintiff adopted the defendants

and work and were entitled equally to the farm. Parker v Clarke Mr and Mrs Clarke live alone. They invited Mrs. Clarke’s niece (Mrs. Parker) to live with them and promised they can inherit their property upon Clarke’s death. The Parkers agreed, sold their house and move in. After 2 years Clark told the Parkers to leave. Phiong Khon v Chonh a Chinese woman set up a home with Chai Fah the appellant until her death. Appellant alleged that the respondent had executed a document which transferred the land to him. Rose & Frank Co v Crompton

Jones v Padavatton

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. Yap Eng Thong &

There was an intention to create contract

The court held the terms of the document to be vague and uncertain and that it must be seriously be doubted whether there was any intention to create a legal relationship. No ITCLR – Agreement has There was written agreement between the parties but it is stated in no legal effect. the agreement that: “This is not a formal or legal document and should not be subjected to the legal jurisdiction of the courts” lack of formality regarding A mother and daughter came to a the agreement between social agreement whereby the mother and daughter mother agreed to maintain her strongly indicated there daughter if she agreed to study law. was no such intention. Daughter commenced her studies and the mother paid her an allowance. Arrangement was later altered and the mother agreed to provide a house if her daughter could reside whilst she studied. Mother and daughter fell into dispute as to the occupancy of the house. [pg 1] Act of depositing money into the bank – ITCLR. Plaintiffs signed an agreement which Negotiation does not

Anor v Faber Union Ltd. [Negotiation - ItCLR]

Merritt v Merritt

agree to purchase a semi-detached bungalow by paying a sum of $500 as option money. The plaintiffs should sign an agreement of sale with the defendants who owned the land, failing which the defendants were entitled to re-sell the property and forfeit the option money. No agreement of sale was entered into and the defendants "called off" the sale to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract. Mr and Mrs Merritt married and held their matrimonial home in joint names. In 1966 Mr Merritt left the family home to live with another woman and agreed to pay Mrs Merritt £40 per month. At Mrs Merritt’s request, he signed a document confirming that when she had repaid the balance on the mortgage, he would transfer the matrimonial home into her sole name. Mrs Merritt paid off the mortgage and successfully acquired a declaration that the house belonged to her. Mr Merritt appealed.

amount to ITCLR.

When parties are in the process of separating, or are separated, the presumption of there being no intention to create legal relations does not apply.

Unlawful Agreement/ Void Agreement Wrigglesworth v

An employer restrained an advocate

Agreement in the

Wilson Anthony [Restraint of Trade]

Polygram Records Sdn. Bhd. v The Search [Restraint of Trade]

restraint of trade is void. and solicitor from practicing his profession within 5 miles from Kota Bharu for 2 years after termination of his present employment A clause in the contract prohibiting Void ab initio – agreement the Search group (a musical band) in restraint of trade. from making any recordings after the expiry of their contract with the plaintiffs....