'Law question Essay\r'

'Ali had an old geezer bike which he stubborn to interchange. He parked the ride on his front lawn with a sign ” For sale- RM20,000″. Ah Chong, who truism the sign, express to Ali that he would be alert to buy the ride for RM15,000. Ali replied that the charge is too low-down and suggested RM18,000. Ah Chong responded by request if Ali would be on the watch to take for granted payment of the RM18,000 in tercet monthly instalments of RM6,000 each. Ali replied that he would not. Ali accordingly added,” Anyway I am no prolonged interested in change the pedal to you.\r\n” At that precise(prenominal) moment Ali spoke these haggling, a meat cleaver flew low bang and drowned out his words. Ali did not disturb to tell what he had fair(a) verbalize and was leaving when Ah Chong pronto agreed to the RM18,000 suggested rather by Ali. Discuss whether at that place is a contr bout amidst Ali and Ah Chong. explicate whether your answer woul d be contrasting if the helicopter flying command processing overhead had not drowned out Ali’s words and Ah Chong heard what was verbalize? Assignment Answer In this assignment, I would like to hash out the question above actuate by theatrical role.\r\nFirst of all, from the judgment of conviction ,” He parked the motorbike on his front lawn with a sign ” For sale- RM20,000″,” it is said that there was an invitation to trade. Invitation to hide or plain speaking in conformationation to heap means a somebody inviting others to make an go in order to create a binding contain. An example of invitation to treat is found in window shop scuppers and product advertisement. . In another(prenominal) words it is a special expression screening a individual’s entrustingness to negotiate.\r\nThe issue of invitation to treat was discussed in the case of Fisher v Bell[1961] 1 QB 394 by the English Court of Appeal : â€Å"It is suddenly clea r that according to the quotidian law of demand the display of an article with a charge on it in a shop window is incisively now an invitation to treat. It is in no smell an mountain pass for sale the sufferance of which constitutes a contract. ”[1]. An bid potty be seen from the prescribed text, â€Å"Ah Chong, who saw the sign, said to Ali that he would be prepared to buy the motorbike for RM15,000.\r\n” It is express in function 2(a) Contracts proceed 1950,” when unitary person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a beguile to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a pr project. ” and subsection 2(b) Contracts conduct 1950,”when the person to whom the purpose is do signifies his assent thereto, the object is said to be legitimate :a proposal, when veritable, becomes a promise. ” . two laws were applied when Ah Chong has shown his willing ness to make an spree as he would be â€Å"PREPARED” to buy the motorbike for RM15,000.\r\nHowever, a counter widen was do by Ali when quite of accepting or rejecting Ah Chong’s chap, Ali made another erect:” Ali replied that the price is too low and suggested RM18,000″. Ali’s nominate refers to a counter asseverate. In this authority unless an adoption is rendered, there is no binding contract between A and B. This situation is stated in class 6(c) Contracts Act 1950-” by the failure of the acceptor to occupy a condition causality to acceptance”. There was known case known as [2]Hyde v. clout, [1840] EWHC Ch J90 where Wrench (D) draw outed to sell his estate of the corporealm to Hyde for 1200 pounds and Hyde (P) declined.\r\nWrench then made a final offer to sell the farm for gibibyte pounds. Hyde in turn offered to leveraging the property for 950 pounds and Wrench replied that he would consider the offer and ingest an answer inwardly close to two weeks. Wrench ultimately rejected the offer and the complainant immediately replied that he accepted Wrench’s earlier offer to sell the real estate for 1000 pounds. Wrench refused and Hyde sued for breach of contract and want specific performance, contending that Wench’s offer had not been pull away prior to acceptance.\r\nThe question or issue here is if one party makes an offer and the offeree makes a counteroffer, does the original offer rest open? Answer is No because a counteroffer negates the original offer. By making a counteroffer, the complainant rejected the original offer and he was not authorize to revive it. So in another words, the parties did not form a binding contract. so we proceed to the next part where Ah Chong made a guiltless enquiry to Ali by asking if Ali would be prepared to accept payment of thr RM18,000 in three monthly instalments of RM6,000 each. Then, Ali replied that he would not.\r\nOn top of th at, Ali added that he is no longer interested in selling the motorbike to Ah Chong. Section 5(1) Contract Acts 1950 †A proposal may be annihilated at any time in front the talk of its acceptance is achieve as against the mover, entirely not afterwards. This particular case [3][3]ROUTLEDGE V GRANT (1828) 4 BING 653 is another example of annulment of an offer : assignment wrote to Routledge offering to bargain for the lease of his house. The offer was to live open for sise weeks. give way then changed his mind well-nigh purchasing the lease and, indoors the sextette weeks, withdrew his offer.\r\nAfter Routledge had authoritative Grant’s garner dealing the offer, he wrote back to Grant, within the cardinal weeks, accepting Grant’s offer. The issue forrader the court was whether Grant could withdraw his offer within the six week gunpoint or whether he was strangulate contractually addicted that Routledge had accepted the offer within the timescal e. The court held the offer could be withdrawn within the six week level without incurring any financial obligation †if one party has six weeks to accept an offer, the other has six weeks to put an end to it.\r\n maven party cannot be bound without the other. The case and scenario above become an useful reminder that until such time as an offer is accepted, the offeror is free to revoke it, even if they have given the recipient a period of time to consider it. When Ali spoke :” I am no longer interested in selling the motorbike to you. ” a helicopter flew and drowned his words. And yet, Ali did not beat to repeat what he just said and was leaving when Ah Chong pronto agreed to the RM18,000 suggested earlier by Ali.\r\nIn this particular moment, Ali rejected Ah Chong’s offer but according to Section 6(a) Contracts Act 1950-” by the communication of remark of revocation by the proposer to the other party”. It states that revocation os not po werful until it is received, communicated. In fact, Ali himself reluctant to repeat what he said which is very important and vital in that situation. Here is one confusable case, [4]Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344. In this case, Van Tienhoven offered to sell goods to Byrne by earn date 1 October. On 8 October, prior to acceptance, Van Tienhoven affix a garner revoking the offer.\r\nThis letter was received by Byrne on 20 October. In the meantime, on 11 October Byrne received the letter and dispatched an acceptance. Was there a contract? To be effective revocation essential be communicated. Where venture is used for acceptance, acceptance occurs when and where sent. However, this rationale does not apply in relation to revocation of offers †thus, if state of affairs is used for revocation, communication is still effective if and when it is received by the offeree. As this occurred after acceptance there was a contract formed in this case. An offer was containi ng a price escalation clause.\r\nA counter offer was then made without this clause; it contained a detachable receipt which the companionship sent back with a notation that they assumed it was on their terms. Thus, the intended cognitive content was failed to be received by Ah Chong, the offer has not been revocated. There is a contract between Ali and Ah Chong in this scenario. Section 6(a) Contracts Act 1950 plain stated revocation must be actually communicated to the offeree to begin with the offer can be treated as efficaciously revoked. Besides, Section 4(1) Contracts Act 1950-” The communication of a proposal is deal when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made”.\r\nImportance of conveying inwardness has been shown when either offering or revocating an offer. On the other hand, if the helicopter flying overhead had not drowned out Ali’s words and Ah Chong heard what was said, outcomes definitely would be different. As was mentioned e arlier, if the intended message was communicated or received by Ah Chong, revocation of the offer will succeed. In conclusion, communication is very crucial when conducting contracts or offerings as the outcomes and consequences can differ easily.\r\n'