Draft TUTO LAW 436 Contract PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Draft TUTO LAW 436 Contract PDF

Description

DRAFT TUTO Question 1 ITT - has no legal binding - is an invitation to make offer in contract - is a form of ads - do not need complete communication

Offer - has legal binding if contract is form - offer is a part of contract - is not an ads - communication must be complete (carlill v carbolic smoke ball) (harris v nickerson) (Gibson v Manchester city council)

Question 2 (b) Issue: whether the acceptance of robin through voicemail to lily amount to binding contract Law: section 2(b) acceptor made signifies his assent section 6(c) failure to fulfil condition section 7(a) acceptance must be absolute and unqualified case: financings ltd v stimson (1962) offer with a condition purchase the car substantially the same condition until the moment of acceptance. Car was stolen and badly damaged condition. No concluded contract as offer made with a condition. LILY IS NOT IMPOSING A CONDITIONAL OFFER, BUT THAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE PRESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ACCEPTANCE SHOULD BE MADE (S7(b)

Ahmad was saved from drowning by his jobless cousin, malik. He promised malik that he would hire him as a training executive in his company. It has been a year since the incident and malik has not received any letter of offer from ahmad Advise malik whether he is entitled to claim the promise from ahmad

Issue: whether malik is entitled to claim the promise from ahmad. Law: S26 of CA 1950: exception of consideration: natural love and affection. def of offer sec 2(a) 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 general rule: offer must be distinguished from preliminary negotiation case: Harvey v facey fact of the case: by telegram, Harvey ask for the lowest price of the bumper hall pen. Facey replied the price as a mere statement and not an offer. Held: the privy council held that there was no contract concluded. Facey was just merely answering (making a statement) for Harvey. There is no evidence of an intention that the telegram sent by facey was to be an offer. Application: Ahmad promise to malik is just a statement that cannot be taken as a proper offer. Letter of offer that has been promised is the real offer. It is up to ahmad whether to make the offer or otherwise.

Issues: whether there is acceptance of LG and Hercules Law: s2(a) def of offer s2(b) def of acceptance s7(a) acceptance must be absolute and unqualified s6 revocation of offer s4(3)(a) + s4(3)(b)

case hyde v wrench Byrne & Co v Lean Van Tienhoven (revocation of offer) Application: in this case, it was a counter offer at first as in the case of hyde v wrench because LG counter offer for the price to be reduced to RM450. The acceptance is not valid at first because it is not absolute and unqualified according to s7(a) of CA 1950 because the offeree has become the offeror by countering the offer. However, Hercules then amended the original offer to RM480 which is a valid offer according to s2(a) of CA 1950 which interpret the definition of offer. LG accepted this offer and this is a valid acceptance according to s2(b) of CA 1950. Sadly, Hercules revoked the offer by selling the watch to another buyer. But the revocation is not complete because in order to revoke an offer, offeree must know about the revocation before submitting the acceptance according to s4(3) (a) and s4(3)(b) of CA 1950. Conclusion: there is a valid contract of LG and Hercules to sell the watch for RM480.

According to section 6, offer can be revoked by notice, by lapse of time, failure to fulfil condition, death and offeror becomes unsound. Firstly, the revocation by notice, according to s4(3)(a) and s4(3)(b), offeree must know about the revocation before submitting acceptance. As long acceptance is yet to be made, the offeror can revoke the offer and the communication of revocation must be complete. Case (Byrne & Co v Lean Van Tienhoven) Secondly, revocation by lapse of time. If there is a time limit for the offer to be accepted, then the offeree must accept the offer before the stated period. If the is no acceptance within that period, then there is no acceptance at all. Thirdly, failure to fulfil condition. Some offer might state the condition to be fulfilled in order for the offer to be valid. If the offeree failed to fulfil all the conditions stated, thus the offer will be revoked Lastly, the death or offeror become unsound. If the offeree know before accepting the offer that the offeror has died or become unsound, then the offer will be revoked.

The issue is whether Kamalia can initiate legal proceedings against Kammy WHETHER KAMALIA CAN SUE KAMMY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT OR ANY OTHER ISSUES WHICH LEAD TO CONSIDERING ANY BREACH OF CONTRACT

The law involve is the principle under intention to create legal intention. The principle is social and domestic arrangement. This principle is used when spouse, parent, children, close relatives and friends make and agreement. The agreement made will have the presumption that there is no legal intention. However there is exception for the principle. The execption is when parties undertake substantial commitment and serious undertaking. Case Wakeling v Ripley In this case, Kamalia cannot initiate any legal proceedings against kammy because they are sisters and it is presumed to not have any legal intention under social and domestic arrangement. However kamalia could rebut this presumption by using exception which is parties undertake a substantial commitment and serious undertaking. This is because Kamalia relied on the promised that Kammy will share the monthly installment and expenses. If Kammy do not fulfil her promise, Kamalia will be stucked to pay all the expenses. Kamalia had changed her position detrimentally in reliance on agreement made with Kammy, as stated in the case of Wakeling and Ripley, the court give exception to this case as Mr Wakeling had changed his position detrimentally in reliance on his agreement with Mr Ripley.

The issue of the case is whether bertha have to pay the remaining RM4000 to Violet. WHETHER BERTHA IS BOUND TO PAY RM4000 UNDER SECTION 64 OF CA1950

The law involve is waiver of performance under Section 64 of Contract Act 1950. The relevant case would be Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh. WE DONT HAVE STATUTORY DEFINITION FOR THE TERM WAIVER OF PERFORMANCE. YOU CAN GIVE YOUR OWN DEFINITION

In Malaysia, the waiver of performance is accepted by virtue of Section 64 of Contract Act 1950. This can be illustrated in the case of Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh. Bariam singh owed Kerpa for RM8869.94. bariam send a cheque of RM4000 as a waiver to Kerpa. He stated that kerpa can return the cheque if he does not want the waiver. Kerpa cash the cheque. Then kerpa demand bariam to pay the remaining money owed. The court the decided that waiver of performance is accepted in Malaysia and the cheque given by bariam constitute to waiver of performance. OK CLASS. FOR THE APPLICATION, YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH WAIVER OF PERFORMANCE + APPLY S.64 FOR BERTHA'S LIABILITY. THEN CONCLUDE

Hence, in this case the payment of RM6000 was accepted by Bertha and Violet. Whether Bertha has picked up or not her business is not an issue. In conclusion, Bertha does not have to pay the remaining RM4000 to Violet as the RM6000 paid by Bertha constitute to waiver of performance.

Question 1 Issue: - whether Felix can claim his rights from Tirai Emas Sdn Bhd and the agreement to purchase the factory is valid. THIS CAN BE YOUR ISSUE: whether Felix has the right to claim from Tirai Emas under past consideration

Law: - Section 2(d) of Contract Act 1950 (definition of consideration) - Section 23 of Contract Act 1950 (contract without consideration is void) - Kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K. Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt (Past consideration is valid in Malaysia) Schimdt was a consultant engineer assisted in obtaining a prospecting permit for mining. He too help in the formation of Kepong Prospecting Ltd. He was appointed as the company MD. Then an agreement was made to give Schimdt 1% value of all ore sold. The court agreed with the past consideration and rendered the agreement as valid. -Section 26, explanation 2 and illustration (f) [consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate] - Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock The respondent alleged that the appellant had trespassed on his land. The appellant counterclaimed for a declaration that she was entitled to the said land. There was an oral agreement between her and respondent for the land to be transferred to her for the payment of RM500. It was held that inadequacy was immaterial and the agreement was valid.

Question 2 Issue: the issue is whether there is contract between suria contractors sdn bhd and joe & joe sdn bhd where there is no formal agreement. YOU NEED FOCUS ON THE EXISTENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT Law: Section 2(b) definition of acceptance Section 7(a) acceptance must be absolute and unqualified Ayer Hitam Tin Dreging Malaysia Bhd v YC Chin Enterprise [1994] 3 CLJ 133 Prism Leisure Sdn Bhd v Lumut Marine Resort Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 391 HERE YOU NEED TO COMBINE BOTH CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE & INTENTION OK GOOD POINTS EVERYONE. YOU CAN FOLLOW THIS: -definition of acceptance sec 2(b) of CA 1950 -condition where acceptance need to be absolute and unqualified sec 7(a) of CA 1950 - definition of intention to create legal relation - definition of 'subject to contract' clause - general assumption of subject to contract and similar phrases - court need to determine whether the parties had entered by considering 1) the interpretation of the phrase 'subject to contract' 2) intention of the parties - case: Turiff Construction Ltd. and Turiff Ltd. v Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd. Application: In this case, suria contractors sdn bhd proceeded to construct the low-cost houses although no formal agreement in writing had been executed. In Ayer Hitam Tin Dreging Malaysia Bhd v YC Chin Enterprise, the court held that parties contemplated execution of a formal contract would not prevent a binding contract from being in force. In the present case, joseph had accepted the proposal by suria contractors sdn bhd on 19 November 2012. As all the essentials had been fulfilled, suria contractor proceeded with the construction although there is no formal agreement as stated in In Prism Leisure Sdn Bhd v Lumut Marine Resort Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 391, where all the essentials of a contract have been ascertained prior to a formal contract, the contract shall be recognised and enforced. Conclusion: The contract is enforceable. Joseph has breached the contract. Suria can claim compensation from joeseph

in this question, Joe & Joe Sdn. Bhd had initiated acceptance as provided in sec 2(b) of CA 1950 by letting his worker to wrote a letter accepting the proposal proposed by Suria Construction Sdn Bhd. the acceptance however, mentioned that the acceptance of Suria Construction's proposal is in respect of the project subject to certain terms and condition which shows the acceptance was made subject to contract and not absolute and unqualified as mentioned in sec 7(a) of CA 1950. the intention of creating a legal relation between the parties can be seen when the letter of acceptance regarding the proposal between the parties is made, but the subject to contract and the similar phrase as used in this question which is in respect of the project subject to certain terms and condition is generally assumed as the contract is not bound by the parties until a formal agreement is made. the considerations needed for determining the contract includes the intention of parties and interpretation of subject to contract. the intention of both parties can be seen that Joe & Joe Sdn Bhd initially accepted the proposal for further negotiation with Suria Construction Sdn. Bhd. as Joe & Joe had already accepted the proposal by Suria Construction Sdn. Bhd. the interpretation of subject to contract was just a pre requisite as both parties is still in negotiations regarding the terms and conditions to the contract. this is similar to the case of the case of Turiff Construction Ltd. and Turiff Ltd. v Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd where the negotaiation broke down and the contract was not awarded to Turiff in this case. we can see in the case of Ayer Itam Tin Dredging Malaysia Berhad v. YC Chin Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [1994] where the court held that the intention of the parties can be seen from the term subject to contract where it amounts to mean that the parties were still in a state of negotiation and did not intend to be bound unless and until a formal contract was exchanged

22/12/2020 The issue of this case whether Wicked Records sue Tomtom for breach of contract and recover fees for private tutor that amounted to RM10000 THE BEST IS...YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CONTRACT. YOU CAN SAY WHETHER THERE IS A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN TOMTOM AND WICKED RECORD

Law - Section 10(1) – capacity to enter into contract - Section 13 of Children & Young Person (Employment) Act 1966 - beneficial contract of service (exception for minors) - Roberts v Gray (1913) -Fawcett v Smethurst (1914) -Section 37 of Specific Relief Act 1950 (compensation) INTRO CAN FOLLOW THIS FOR YOUR INTRO: -section 10(1) of CA 1950 -Section 11 of CA 1950 for competent parties -Section 2 of Age of Majority Act 1971 position of contract entered by minor is void as referred to the decision of Privy Council in the case of Mohari Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose which shows pari materia of Sec 10 (1) and Sec 11 of Indian Contracts and and Contracts Act 1950. CAN FOLLOW THESE SEQUENCE: - general presumption of law regarding everyone have the capacity to the contract - Sec 10(1) of CA 1950 regarding the validity of contract with competent parties by free consent - Sec 11 of CA 1950 regarding who is competent parties - Section 2 of Age Majority Act 1971 defines 18 years old or under as minor - Section 2 (g) of CA 1950 contract void when not enforceable by law -position of contract entered by minor is void as referred to the decision of Privy Council in the case of Mohari Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghose which shows pari materia of Sec 10 (1) and Sec 11 of Indian Contracts and and Contracts Act 1950. Exceptions for Minor under on Beneficial Contracts of Service - Children & Young Persons (Employment) Act - Case: Fawcett v Smethurst

Application. As per Section 10(1) of the Contract Act 1950, tomtom might not enter into contract. However, Tomtom can enter into a contract with Wicked records although he is a minor because of the exceptions for minors which state that minor can enter into a contract under Section 13 of Children & Young Person (employment) Act 1966, beneficial contract for service. Therefore, the contract made earlier by tomtom and Wicked records is a legitimate contract. Tomtom, however, decided to accept a better offer and left wicked records. In the case of Roberts v Gray (1913), when a minor in that case failed to perform his duty, he was liable for breach of contract. Hence, as tomtom had entered into contract with Wicked Records, he is bound to the terms and condition laid down. As he accepted a better offer, tomtom had breached the contract with Wicked Records. Thus, Wicked Records could sue Tomtom for breach of contract and recover the fees for private tutor that amounted to RM10000 as per Section 37 of Specific Relief Act 1950 for compensation. YOU NEED TO DISCUSS TWO THINGS HERE: 1) THE EXPENSES FOR EDUCATION 2) WHEN SHE JOIN ANOTHER RECORDING COMPANY WHAT IS YOUR BASIS SAYING THAT THE CONTRACT IS BINDING? NEED TO ARGUE IN THE LIGHT OF BENEFICIAL CONTRACT + NECESSARIES

Issue: Whether Chong Weei can take legal action against Uncle Johnny to claim his 40% of gratuity. Whether Chong Weei can take legal action against Nordin under fraud. YOU CAN ALSO SAY WHETHER CHOONG WEI CAN ENFORCE THE PROMISE MADE BY HIS UNCLE [email protected] YES CORRECT. OR YOU CAN CHANGE THE WORD 'TAKE LEGAL ACTION' TO RESCIND/TERMINATE Law: Social & domestic arrangement (intention to create legal relation) Exception under intention: Parties undertake a substantial commitment Wakeling v Ripley PLEASE STATE THE 2 PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW, THEN ONLY YOU FOCUSS ON SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC ARRANGMENT 1) social or domestic agreements are presumed to have no legal consequences 2)commercial arrangements are presumed that there is an intention to create legal relation Law 2: Section 10(1) of CA 1950 Section 13 of CA 1950 (Consent) Section 14 of CA 1950 (free consent) Section 17 of CA 1950 (deceitful act & intention) Section 17(b) Active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge of believe of the fact

Derry Peek [1899] Tay Tho Bok & Anor v Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn Bhd [email protected] THIS IS THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION. DONT FORGET TO INCLUDE UNDER THE LAW. S10(1),13,14 YOU NEED TO CONCLUDE WITH S19, 65 AND ANY OTHER SUITABLE REMEDIES

The issue is whether cik Syam can rescind the contract made between her and shahrul on the basis of fraud? This is the best issue SECTION 17 (b) IS MORE TO WHEN THE BUYER CONCEAL THE MATERIAL FACT. BUT HERE, THE CAR OWNER GAVE WRONG STATEMENT TO THE PURCHASER. WHICH SUBSECTION IS MORE RELEVANT HERE?

S.34(1) & S37 OF SRA AND ALSO S65 OF CA (remedies for fraud)...