Fixed period the plaintiff duly used the product

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 7 pages.

fixed period. The plaintiff duly used the product advertised but nevertheless, become ill. The Plaintiff upon refusal of the defendants to honour their promise, proceed to sue them.
2
UPMH/UPMET/PPPER2012/MGM3351/10F Held, the Plaintiff had accepted the offer to the company made to the world at large and is, therefore, entitled to the money (o.5m) Communication of offer Section 4(1) The communication of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made (1 marks) R v Clarke (1m) Australian government offered a reward for information leading arrest of persons responsible for the murder of two policeman. X and Clarke were arrested and charged with murder but shortly after, Clarke gave information which lead to the arrest of Y. X and Y later convicted for murder and Clarke was discharged. Clarke then Claimed for the reward. Clarke claimed was rejected by the court because he has no knowledge with regard to the offer by Australian government. He gave the info not because he knows about the reward but to clear himself. (1 marks) Application Korie is making a proposal to the world at large by advertising the reward to the public- Thus, there is a valid offer. But as S 4(1) is concerned, the offer must be communicated whereby in this case, Shah did not know about the offer by Korie when he retruned Blackie to Korie. He only know only after he returned Blackie. (2marks) Conclusion There is no contract between Shah and Korie because Shah do not have any knowledge on the reward made by Korie. Therefore, Shah cannot receive the reward made by Korie. (1 m) SOALAN 2 (QUESTION 2) Suzi telah telah menulis surat menawarkan kepada Fifi komputer ribanya dengan harga RM 1,500 pada 1 haribulan Febuari 2012. Pada keesokan harinya, Miki telah menemui Suzi dan dia telah bersetuju untuk membeli komputer riba kepunyaan Suzi dengan harga RM 2,000. Suzi kemudian terus menghantar surat untuk membatalkan tawarannya kepada Fifi pada 2 haribulan Febuari 2012. Sementara itu, Fifi telah mengepos surat persetujuaannya kepada Suzi pada hari yang sama. Surat pembatalan tawaran tersebut hanya sampai kepada Fifi pada 4 haribulan Febuari 2012. Nasihatkan kedua-dua belah pihak; samada telah wujud kontrak yang sah di antara Suzi dan Fifi ? (10 markah) 3
UPMH/UPMET/PPPER2012/MGM3351/10F Suzi wrote a letter offered Fifi her laptop for RM1,500 on 1 st February 2012. On the following day, Miki met Suzi and Miki agreed to buy Suzi’s laptop for RM2000. Suzi then sent a letter revoking her offer to Fifi on 2 nd February 2012. On the other hand, Fifi had posted her letter of acceptance to Suzi on the same day. The letter of revocation reached Fifi on 4 th February 2012. Advise both parties; whether there is a valid contract between Suzi and Fifi ? (10 markah) Issue : 1. Whether the acceptance made by Fifi is valid or not? 2. Whether the revocation of offer made by Suzi is effective? 3. Whether there is a valid contract between Fifi and Suzi?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture