LAW
Identification of Issue
The first issue that need to be indentifies is whether the advertisement inserted by Rashid is an ivitation to treat (ITT) or a proposal.
The second issue that need to be identifies is whether there exist a valid agreement between Joyce and Rashid.
The third issue that need to be identifies is whether the revocation of proposal made by Rashid is valid.
The fourth issue will be the effect of a contract entered into with a bankrupt and what kind of remedies were there have for such contracts.
Explanation of relevant law
According to the Contracts Act 1950, under section 2(h), an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Furthermore, S. 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that any agreement which is not enforceable by the law is said to be void. To have an enforceable contract there must be offer and acceptance. In Section 2(a) stated that a proposal is made when one person signifies to another willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence. An offer is a declaration of a willingness to be legally bound on acceptance of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, clear and unequivocal words must be used to envince an intention to be bound; case1 Ho Ah Kim v. Paya Trubong Estate Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 143.
In this section, invitation to treat (ITT) will be discussed. What may look like a proposal could only be an invitation to treat. In another word, an invitation is made for offers which would be considered by the proposer. Whether if it is a proposal or invitation, depends primarily on the intention of the parties. Advertisements is generally ITT. As a general rule an advertisment is considered by courts to be not an offer but a mere invitation to treat, this is to say, an offer to make offers as summarised by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in case2 Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sherriff, High Court of Malaya, Seremban & Ors [2001] 4 MLJ 49. This is also supported by the case 3Coelho
The first issue that need to be indentifies is whether the advertisement inserted by Rashid is an ivitation to treat (ITT) or a proposal.
The second issue that need to be identifies is whether there exist a valid agreement between Joyce and Rashid.
The third issue that need to be identifies is whether the revocation of proposal made by Rashid is valid.
The fourth issue will be the effect of a contract entered into with a bankrupt and what kind of remedies were there have for such contracts.
Explanation of relevant law
According to the Contracts Act 1950, under section 2(h), an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Furthermore, S. 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that any agreement which is not enforceable by the law is said to be void. To have an enforceable contract there must be offer and acceptance. In Section 2(a) stated that a proposal is made when one person signifies to another willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence. An offer is a declaration of a willingness to be legally bound on acceptance of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, clear and unequivocal words must be used to envince an intention to be bound; case1 Ho Ah Kim v. Paya Trubong Estate Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 143.
In this section, invitation to treat (ITT) will be discussed. What may look like a proposal could only be an invitation to treat. In another word, an invitation is made for offers which would be considered by the proposer. Whether if it is a proposal or invitation, depends primarily on the intention of the parties. Advertisements is generally ITT. As a general rule an advertisment is considered by courts to be not an offer but a mere invitation to treat, this is to say, an offer to make offers as summarised by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in case2 Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sherriff, High Court of Malaya, Seremban & Ors [2001] 4 MLJ 49. This is also supported by the case 3Coelho