OFFER

1. A advertises in a news paper a reward of RM1000 for those who finds her
pussy cat. B finds the cat and she recognises it belongs to A. After returning
the cat to A then only B learns that there is a reward. B claims the reward
from A but fails.

2. A published an advertisement at the time of an influenza epidemic proclaiming

that their medicine can cure flue. For those who consume it but still cannot
cure can claim RM100 from A’s company. B tries to claim from A because she
has consumed the medicine but still have flue. A refuses to give RM100 to B.

3. X posts on his face book his intention to sell his house. Y sends a message to
X but no reply. Later, Y is informed that the house has been sold to Z. Y is not
satisfied.

4. L goes to shopping mall to buy groceries. While putting the groceries into a
trolley, L receives a call from her maid saying that her house is caught on fire.
She leaves the groceries and tries to get out from the mall but is stopped by
the security guard. L is asked to pay the groceries but she refuses.

5. On 1 August 2016 P posted a letter of offer to Q. 3 August Q received and

immediately she accepted the offer by posting a letter via courier. 2 August P
posted a letter to revoke the offer which reached Q on 5 August. Later, P
refuses to sell the goods to Q by saying that he has revoked the offer.

ACCEPTANCE

6. M offers to sell her ring at RM100. S agrees to accept at RM90 but M refuses.
Later S agrees to buy the ring at RM100 but M still refuses. S sues M

7. J offers to sell her painting to K. K keeps silent but she already asks her
husband to take leave to accompany her to J’s house to see the painting. On
her way to J’s house, K learns that J has sold the painting to N. K is not
satisfied.

8. Lily sent a message to Fify telling her offer to sell a preloved hijab at RM25.00
and Fify must reply within one hour. Fify read the message and replied that
she agreed to buy the hijab but her message reached Lily after two hours. Lily
thought Fify was not interested to buy the hijab so she sold it to Wafa.

9. S sends a letter of offer to Y to sell her hand phone for RM250. Y agrees to
buy and posts a letter of acceptance via ordinary mail. The next day Y
changes her mind and would like to cancel her acceptance. So she posts a
letter of revocation of acceptance. S calls Y telling that she receives 2 letters.
Advise S.
 CONSIDERATION

10. Z advertised a reward of RM100 for those who can find her rabbit. W read the
advertisement and she found the said rabbit. After returning the rabbit to Z,
she refused to pay the reward. Advise W.

11. Pheng has 2 adopted children. Before she dies, she asked her sisters and
brothers to renounce their rights in favour of the 2 adopted children. After she
died they entered into contract with the 2 adopted children. Later, there was
someone raised the issue that the contract was not valid. Advise.

12. While walking back to hostel, D found a wallet which he recognized its owner,
G. After returning the wallet to G, he promised to pay RM50 the next day.
When D asked the money G refused to pay. Advise

13. Q has been sentenced for 1 year imprisonment. He has seven year old son.
He asked his uncle to take care of his son. After Q was discharged from
prison, he wanted to take his son from his uncle. He promised to pay to his
uncle all expenditures incurred during his absent. After one week, Q’s uncle
remind Q about his promise but he refused to pay. Advise

14. X offers to sell his new car worth RM50,000.00 to Y at the sum of
Rm10,000.00 only. Y agrees to buy the car but then X refuses to proceed with
the contract. Advise

15. B bought a laptop from N. B’s father wanted to pay the laptop but N refused to
accept saying that B must pay the price not his father. Advise.

16. Haikal promised to take his wife Nazirah to Dubai for their wedding
anniversary. Haikal later changed his mind and decided to celebrate their
wedding anniversary at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur. Nazirah who was looking
forward to the trip, is very disappointed and threatened to sue Haikal for
breaking his promise. Advise Nazirah on whether she can do so.

17. Danny, aged 17, has just enrolled in Ivory College to pursue his studies in
architecture. He ordered a laptop with the latest features for graphic design
and video editing worth RM12,000 from Techno-Trend Ltd (TL). Two weeks
later, TL informed Danny that the laptop had arrived, and Danny has to make
payment. Danny failed to pay it as he did not have enough money at that
time. TL wants to take legal action against Danny for payment of the laptop.
Advise Danny on his liability in relation with his contract with TL.
 SAMPLE OF ANWERS

QUESTION 1

Issue
Whether B is entitled to claim the reward from A.

Principles of Law
Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 195, defines an offer as when an offeror signifies to
an offeree his willingness to do something, in order to obtain the offeree’s
agreement/assent to accept the offer.

The word ‘signifies’ in the definition shows that the offer must be communicated to
the offeree otherwise the offer is not valid towards the offeree.

Section 4(1) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that a communication of an offer is
complete when it comes to the knowledge of the offeree.

This principle is illustrated by case of R v. Clarke (1927). in this case, Clarke was
arrested and charged with murder. Clarke gave an information to the police which
led to the arrest of another culprit, without knowing that there was a reward as
advertised by the government. Later, Clarke claimed the reward but failed. The court
held that Clarke was not entitled to claim the reward since he he had no knowledge
about it at the time he gave the information to the police.

Application
Based on the given situation, B returned the cat to A without knowing that there was
a reward as advertised by A.

By applying the above principles, B is not entitled to claim the reward because B
has no knowledge about the reward as advertised by A at the time B returned the cat
to A. Therefore, A is not liable to give the reward to B.

Conclusion
In conclusion, B is not entitled to claim the reward since she has no knowledge about
it.
QUESTION 2

Issue
Whether B is entitled to claim RM100 from A’s company.

Principles opf Law

Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950 defines an offer as when an offeror signifies to
an offeree his willingness to do something, in order to obtain the offeree’s
agreement/assent to accept the offer.

There are two types of offer which are general offer and specific offer. First, general
offer means an offer made to the public at large. This principle is illustrated by the
case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893). In this case, the defendant
advertised that they would offer 100 pound to anyone who still succumbs to influenza
after using the company’s medicine according to the instructions for fixed period. The
plaintiff duly used the product, but nevertheless contracted influenza. The plaintiff
then sued for the money offered by the defendant. The court held that the statement
in the advertisement had created a binding obligation. The contract was concluded
when the plaintiff accepted the offer of the company and he was therefore entitled
that to get 100 pound.

Specific offer means an offer made to the specific person. This principle is illustrated
by the case of Boulton v Jones .

Application
Based on the given situation, B has consumed the product from A’s company but still
suffer from flue. B tried to claim RM100 from A’s company but failed.
By applying the above principles, B is entitled to claim RM100 from A’s company
because the statement in the advertisement made by A is a binding obligation and a
contract was concluded when B bought the product. Therefore, A’s company is
liable to pay RM100 to B as promised in their advertisement.

Conclusion
In conclusion, B is entitled to claim RM100 since A’s promise in the advertisement is
binding.
QUESTION 3

Issue
Whether X is liable to sell his house to Y.

Principles of Law
Section 2 (a) of the Contract Act 1950, defines an offer as when an offeror signifies
to an offeree his willingness to do something, in order to obtain the offeree’s
agreement/assent to accept the offer.

Invitation to treat (ITT) is not an offer but it invites the other party to make an offer.
The person who makes the ITT has no obligation to accept the offer. Once the offer
is accepted, a contract will be concluded.

There are 5 situations under ITT which are advertisement, display of goods, tender,
price list and auction.

Regarding the advertisement, when a person advertises in a newspaper on a social

media, he is not making an offer but merely invites the public or netizen to make an
offer. The advertiser has no obligation to accept the offer. A contract is concluded
when he agrees to accept the offer.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Harris v Nickerson (1873), the defendant
advertised for a sale of goods on certain dates at a particular place. The plaintiff
travelled to the location and discovered that the goods had been withdrawn from the
sale. The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages as he alleged that the
defendant had breached the contract. It was held that the claim was rejected by the
court since the advertisement was merely an ITT.

Application
Based on the given situation, X did not reply Y’s message regarding his interest to
buy X’s house but then the house was sold to Z.

By applying the above principles, X is not liable to sell his house to Y because his
posting on facebook was merely an ITT. X has no obligation to reply Y’s message. X
is at liberty to sell his house to Z. Therefore, Y is not entitled to buy X’s house.

Conclusion
X is not liable to sell his house to Y since his posting on facebook was merely an
ITT.
QUESTION 4

Issue: Whether L is liable to pay the groceries.

Principles of Law:
Section 2 (a) of the Contract Act 1950, defines an offer as when an offeror signifies
to an offeree his willingness to do something, in order to obtain the offeree’s
agreement/assent to accept the offer.

Invitation to treat (ITT) is not an offer but it invites the other party to make an offer.
The person who makes the ITT has no obligation to accept the offer. Once the offer
is accepted, a contract will be concluded.

There are 5 situations under ITT which are advertisement, display of goods, tender,
price list and auction.

Regarding the display of goods,

In the case, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the defendant was charged
under the Pharmacy & Poison Act is 1933 which provided if it was unlawful to sell
certain medicine unless such sell was supervised by a registered pharmacist. The
plaintiff alleged that the sale was complete when the customer took a goods from the
shelf and put it into his basket.
Application:
Based on the given situation, L left the groceries in the trolley and tried to get out
from the mall but was stopped by the security guard and asking her to pay the
groceries.
By applying the above principles, L is not liable to pay the groceries because she
has not reached the payment counter yet the place where a contract should
concluded when a cashier accepts to sell the groceries. L only made an offer to buy
when she put the groceries into the trolley. Therefore, the security guard is not
entitled to stop L and asked her to pay.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, L is not liable to pay the groceries because she has not reached the
cashier yet / there is no acceptance by cashier
QUESTION 5

Issue:
Whether the revocation of offer by P is effective.

Principles of law:
Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950, provides that an offer is when an offeror
signifies to an offeree his willingness to do something, in order to obtain the
offeree’s agreement/assent to accept the offer.

Section 5(1) states that offer may be revoked at any time before the offeree accepts
the offer.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Byrne V. Van Tienhoven (1880). In this
case Tienhoven posted a letter of offer on 1st October to Byrne. On 8th of October
Tienhovern then posted a letter of revocation. Byrne received the letter of offer on
11th of October and sent his acceptance through telegram on the same day. Byrne
received the letter of revocation only on 20th of October. The court held that the letter
of revocation is not effective as it reached Byrne on the 20 th of October after he had
accepted the offer on 11th October.

Application
Based on the given situation, letter of revocation of offer reached Q after the contract
was concluded on 3rd August.

By applying the above principles, the revocation of offer by P is not effective because
the letter of revocation of offer reached Q on 5 th August after a contract was
concluded on 3rd August when P accepted the offer. Therefore, P is liable to sell the
goods to Q.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the revocation of offer by P is not effective as the contract was already
concluded.
QUESTION 6

Issue
Whether S is entitled to buy the ring at RM90

Principles of law
Section 2(b) of the Contact Act 1950 defines an acceptance as when an offeree
signifies his assent to accept the offer, the offer is said to be accepted.
Section 7(a) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that an acceptance must be the same
with the original offer made by the offeror without any modification. If an offeree
make a modification on the original offer and the offeror disagrees, it will become a
counter offer. There is no contract concluded because the counter offer destroys the
original offer.
This principle is illustrated by the case of Hyde v. Wrench (1840). On June 6, the
defendant offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff for 1000 pound. On June 8, the
plaintiff made a counter offer to purchase the estate at 950 pound. The defendant
refused. Then, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that he was prepared to pay 1000
pound. But the defendant still refused and the plaintiff sued the defendant. The court
held that there was no contract concluded since the counter offer made by the
plaintiff destroyed the original offer of 1000 pound made by the defendant.
Application
Based on the given situation, S wanted buy the ring at RM90 instead of RM100 as
offered by M. M refused.
By applying the above principle S is not entitled to buy the ring at RM90 because she
has made a counter offer when M refused to accept it. This counter offer destroyed
the original offer of RM100. Therefore, there is no contract between M and S. M is
not liable to sell her ring to S.

Conclusion
In conclusion, S is not entitled to buy the ring since M's original offers is destroyed /
there is no contract between S & M
QUESTION 7

Issue
Whether K is entitled to buy the painting.

Principle of law
Section 2(b) of the Contract Act 1950 defines an acceptance as when an offeree
signifies his assent to accept the offer, the offer is said to be accepted.
The word ‘signifies’ in the definition means that the offer acceptance must be
communicated to the offeror , then only it becomes an acceptance.

A contract is concluded when an acceptance is communicated to the offeror or when

the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the offeror. Therefore, an offeree must
communicate his/her acceptance to the offeror since mere silence does amount to
an acceptance.
This principle is illustrated by the case of Felthouse v Blindly. The plaintiff offered by
letter to buy his nephew’s horse and said to him ‘If I hear no more about it, it shall
consider the horse is mine’. However, the nephew did not give his answer but told B
who is an auctioneer to keep the horse. But, B sold the horse to someone by
mistake. The plaintiff sued B. The court held that there was no acceptance by the
Plaintiff’s nephew since he did not reply the plaintiff’s letter. Therefore, there was no
contract between them.
Application
Based on the given situation, K kept silent to the offer made by J and K was not
satisfied when J sold the painting to N.
By applying the above principles, K is not entitled to buy the painting because K just
kept silent and failed to inform J about her interest/agreement to buy the painting.
Therefore, there is no contract between K and J. J is at liberty to sell the painting to
N.
Conclusion
K is not entitled to buy the painting since there is no acceptance by K/ no contract
concluded.
QUESTION 8

Issue:
Whether Fify is entitled to buy the preloved Hijab.

Principle of Law:
Section 2(b) of the Contract Act 1950 defines an acceptance as when an offeree
signifies his assent to accept the offer, the offer is said to be accepted.
There are 2 types of communication which are instantaneous communication and
postal rule communication. Under instantaneous communication a contract is
concluded instantaneously. While postal rule is an exception where a contract is
concluded the moment an acceptance is posted regardless of whether it reaches the
offeree or not. For instances, a contract via ordinary mail amd online such as email,
website, whatsapp.

According to Section 4(2) communication of acceptance is complete

a)as against the offeror when the letter of acceptance is posted regardless of
whether it reach the offeree or not and
b)as against the offeree when the offeror knows about the acceptance.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Ignatius v Bell (1913), D offered to sell his
land to P with one condition that the acceptance must be made on or before the 20
August 1912. P send his letter was posted on 16 August even though it reached
much later. The court held that there was an acceptance by P when the letter was
posted on 16 August even though it reached much later. Therefore, the contract was
concluded in 16 August and D was bound by the contract.

Application:
Based on the given situation, Fify replied Lily’s message accepting to buy the
preloved hijab but reached Lily much later.

By applying the above principles, Fify is entitled to buy the preloved hijab because a
contract is concluded the moment she replied Lily’s message within one hour
eventhough it reached Lily after two hours.Therefore, Lily is liable to sell the preloved
hijab to Fify not to Wafa.

Conclusion:
Fify is entitled buy the preloved hijab since the contract was concluded the moment
she replied the message.
QUESTION 9

Issue
Whether the revocation of acceptance by Y is effective.

Principle of law
Section 2 (b) of the Contract Act 1950 defines an acceptance as when an offeree
signifies his assent to accept the offer, the offer is said to be accepted.
Section 5 (2) of the Contract Act 1950 states that an acceptance may be revoked at
any time before the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the offeror or before the
offeror knows about it.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Dunmore v Alexander, where the letter of
acceptance and the letter of revoking the acceptance reached the offeror
simultaneously. It was held that the acceptance was revoked effectively.

Application
Based on the given situation, the letter of acceptance and the letter of revocation of
acceptance reached S simultaneously.

By applying the above principles, the revocation of acceptance by Y is effective

because it reached S simultaneously. Therefore, the acceptance is not valid and no
contract is concluded.

Conclusion
The revocation of acceptance by Y is not effective since it reached S simultaneously
QUESTION 10

Issue
Whether W is entitled to claim the reward from Z

Principles of law
Section 2(d) provide that when an offeree or any other person has done something
as desired by the offeror, it is called a consideration.

There are three types of consideration, which are executory, executed and past.
a)Executory consideration is when a promise for a promise which in other words, an
exchange of promises to perform acts in the future. This principle is illustrated by the
case of Wong Hon Leong David v Noorazman bin Adnan (1995) where appellant
promised to pay respondent RM268888 in return for the respondent’s application to
convert and subdivide certain land to be developed into a housing estate. The court
held that the exchange of mutual promise was good consideration because there
was a binding agreement between them and the respondent’s claim for the fee
succeeded.

The second type of consideration is executed consideration where the promise is for
an act and the promise comes first and followed by an act.

The third type is past consideration where one promise is made in return for an act
that has already been performed. This principle is illustrated by the case of
Lampleigh v Brathwaite (1615) where at the request of L, B managed to get the
King’s pardon and L promised to give £100 but subsequently failed to pay. The
courts held that there was a binding contract and L was liable to pay £100 to B.

Application
Based on the given situation, Z refused to pay the reward to W after the rabbit was
returned to him by W.

By applying the above principles, W is entitled to claim the reward RM100 from Z
because the act of returning the rabbit as requested in the advertisement was an
executed consideration done by W. Z was bound with the promise in the
advertisement. Therefore, a contract is concluded and Z was liable to pay the reward
to W.

Conclusion
W is entitled to claim the reward from Z since W has done ‘executed consideration’.
QUESTION 11

Issue :
Whether the contract is valid.
Principle of law :
Section 2(d) provides that the consideration is valid when an offeree has done
somehing as requested by the offeror.
Based on the general rule, a contract without consideration is void. But there are
some exceptions whereby the contracts are valid without consideration namely, sec
26(a) (b) (c).
Section 26(a) provides that an agreement made on account of natural love and
affection between parties standing in near relation to each other. It is one of the
exceptions to consideration. For instance, parties such as parents and child or
husband and wife.
There are 3 conditions to fulfill on agreement in Section 26(a) , which are the
agreement must be in writing, must be made in account of natural love and affection
between parties standing in near relation to each other, and it must be registered if
required by any law.
This principle is illustrated by the case of Re Tan Soh Sim. The deceased , in her
last illness had expressed a wish that her estate should be divided among her four
adopted children. The legal next kin of deceased respecting the wish made an
agreement renouncing all their rights in favour of the four adopted children.
Therefore, the agreement was not valid since there was no consideration from the
four adopted children.
Application :
Based on the given situation, the siblings of the late Pheng signed a contract with 2
adopted children to renounce their rights but someone objected.
By applying the above principles, the contract between the siblings of the late Pheng
with 2 adopted children is not valid because the siblings of the deceased were not in
near relation to the 2 adopted children. The contract made was not based on love
and affection. Furthermore, there was no consideration on the part of the two
adopted children.
Conclusion :
In conclusion, the contract was not valid since there was not consideration from the
two adopted children.
QUESTION 12

Issue :
Whether G is liable to pay to D. @ whether D is entitled to claim the money from G
Principle of law :
Section 2(d) of Contract Act 1950 provides that when an offeree or any other person
has done something as requested by the offeror, it is called consideration.
Based on the general rule, a contract without consideration is void. But there are
exception whereby the contracts are valid without consideration.
Section 26(a) provides that agreement made on account of natural love and affection
between parties standing in near relation to each other is one of the exceptions to
consideration. For example, it is made between husband and wife, or parents and
children. There are 3 conditions in this exceptions, which are the agreement must
be in writing, must be registered if required by any law, and must be made on
account of natural love and affection between parties standing in near relation to
each other.
Section 26(b) provides that it is promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person
who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. There are 2 agreement
to compensate, which are a past of voluntary act and an act which is compellable to
do.
Section 26(c) states regarding the agreement to pay a statute barred debt. The
debtor must promise to pay the debt barred by limitation law ( 6 years from the time
of course of action ). The promise must be expressed in writing and signed by the
debtor.
Application :
Based on the given situation, G refused to pay to D RM50 as promised at the time D
returned the wallet to him.
By applying the above principles, G is liable to pay RM50 to D because he has
already promised to do so at the time D returned the wallet to him voluntarily. G was
bound with the promise he made to compensate D’s voluntary act. Therefore, D is
entitled to claim the money from G.
Conclusion :
In conclusion, G is liable to pay RM50 to D since G was bound with his promise.
QUESTION 13

Issue :
Whether Q is liable to pay his uncle as promised@ whether Q’s uncle is entitled to
claim the payment from Q
Principle of law :
Section 2(d) of Contract Act 1950 provides that when an offeree or any other person
has done something as requested by the offeror, it is called consideration.
Based on the general rule, a contract without consideration is void. But there are
exception whereby the contracts are valid without consideration.
Section 26(a) provides that agreement made on account of natural love and affection
between parties standing in near relation to each other is one of the exceptions to
consideration. For example, it is made between husband and wife, or parents and
children. There are 3 conditions in this exceptions, which are the agreement must
be in writing, must be registered if required by any law, and must be made on
account of natural love and affection between parties standing in near relation to
each other.
Section 26(b) provides that it is promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person
who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. There are 2 agreement
to compensate, which are a past of voluntary act and an act which is compellable to
do.
Section 26(c) states regarding the agreement to pay a statute barred debt. The
debtor must promise to pay the debt barred by limitation law ( 6 years from the time
of course of action ). The promise must be expressed in writing and signed by the
debtor.
Application :
Based on the given situation, Q refused to pay his uncle as promised, all
expenditures incurred in taking care of his son during his absent.
By applying the above principles, Q is liable to pay his uncle all expenditures
incurred in taking care of his son during his absent because Q’s promise is to
compensate an act which is compellable to do, which means Q’s obligation to take
care of his son was shifted to his uncle. Q was bound with his promise to pay as to
compensate his uncle’s voluntary act. . Therefore, Q’s uncle is entitled to claim the
payment from Q
Conclusion :
In conclusion. Q is liable to pay his uncle since Q was bound with promise / Q’s
promise is to compensate his uncle’s voluntary act.
QUESTION 14

Issue :
Whether a contract between X and Y was concluded.
Principle of law :
Section 2(d) provides that the consideration is valid when an offeree has done
something as desired by the offeror.
There are 5 rules of consideration, which are a consideration must be sufficient but
not be adequate, a consideration may come from an offeree or other person, a
consideration must have some values, consideration must be legal and unbias, also
consideation must not be impossible.
Regarding the rule of consideration that must be sufficient and need not be
adequate, both parties must agree to enter into contract without any negative
elements which could vitiate a contract even though the price of goods seems to be
inadequate or unreasonable.
This principle is illustrated by the case of Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock (1964). P
agree to transfer to K a parcel of a land on payment of $500 although the land worth
much more. Later, P refused to perform the contract of inadequancy of
consideration. The court held that the inadequancy of consideration is immaterial
(not important) ,so the contract is valid.
Application :
Based on the given situation, both Y and X agrees to enter into the contract even
though the price of the car seems inadequate.
By applying the above principles, a contract between X and Y was concluded
because both parties agreed to enter into contract even though the price of the car
seems inadequate. The price is sufficient and the issue of inadequacy is immaterial.
Therefore, Y is entitled to buy the car at RM10,000.
Conclusion :
In conclusion, the contract between Y and X was concluded as both of them agreed.
QUESTION 15

Issue :
Whether B’s father is entitled to pay the price of the laptop.

Principle of law :
Section 2(d) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that consideration is when an offeree
or any other person has done something as desired by the offeror.

There are 5 rules of consideration, which are consideration must be sufficient but
need not be adequate, a consideration may come from an offeree or a third party, a
consideration must have some values, consideration must be legal and unbias, also
consideration must be possible of performance. In this case, rules of a consideration
may come from an offeree or third party applies. It means, other party is liable to pay
even though it is not their obligation.

Regarding a consideration may come from an offeree or a third party, there is a valid
and good consideration when it moves from a third party and the party in the contract
pays nothing.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Venkata Chinnaya vs Verikataramaya. This

is when a sister agreed to pay an annuity of Rs 653 to her brothers who provided no
consideration for the promise. On the same day, their mother had given the sister
some land stipulating that she must pay the annuity to her brothers. When the sister
subsequently failed to fulfill the promise, her brother sued her. It was held that she
was liable on the promise on the ground that there was a valid consideration for the
promise even though it did not move from the brothers.

Application :
Based on the given situation, N refused to accept the payment of a laptop from B’s
father but insisted B to pay.

By applying the above principles, B’s father is entitled to pay the price of the laptop
because a consideration may come from any party. There was a good consideration
even though it moved from B’s farther and B pays nothing. Therefore, N must
accept the payment from B’s farther.

Conclusion :
In conclusion, B’s father is entitled pay for the price of the laptop as it may move
from any party.
QUESTION 16

Issue :
Whether Haikal was bound with his promise.

Principle of law :
There are two types of agreements namely, family agreement and commercial
agreement whereby the law presumes differently pertaining to the intention of the
parties to create legal relation.
Regarding family agreement, the law presumes that there is no intention of the
parties to create a legally binding contract. Unless the parties or one of the parties
can prove otherwise which means they can produce evidences to show that they
have an intention to bind the contract.

This principle is illustrated by the cases of :

Balfour v Balfour (1919)

The husband promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance as maintenance. Later,
he failed to keep his promise and therefore his wife sued him.
Held: The husband’s promise was a family agreement and therefore it is presumed
that the parties did not intend the promise to be legally binding contract.

Merrit v Merrit (1970)

The husband & the wife decided to divorce. They had agreed in writing & signed by
both parties that the husband pay the wife £40 a month for the wife to pay the
outstanding mortgage payment. Upon completion of the payment, the husband
agreed to transfer the house to the wife. However, the husband had breached his
promise. Held: There was a binding contract because the parties had intended to
create legal relations by making their agreement in writing and signed by the
husband. Accordingly, the house must be transferred to the wife.

Application :
Based on the given situation, Haikal changed his mind to celebrate their wedding
anniversary at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur instead of Dubai. Nazirah was very
disappointed and threatened to sue Haikal.

By applying the above principles, Haikal was not bound with his promise to take
Nazirah to Dubai because this is family agreement whereby the law presumes that
they did not intend the promise to be legally binding contract, unless Nazirah can
prove otherwise. Therefore, Nazirah should not threaten to sue Haikal.

Conclusion :
In conclusion, Haikal was not bound with his promise to take Nazirah to Dubai as this
is family agreement.
QUESTION 17

Issue :
Whether Danny is liable for the payment of the laptop.

Principle of law :
According to a general rule, a contract with a minor is void. However, there
exceptions whereby a minor may enter into contract namely, marriage contract,
contract for scholarship, contract for necessaries, apprenticeship, insurance contract
and agency.

Regarding a contract of necessaries, a minor is liable to pay if the two tests are
satisfied namely, the nature of the goods and the actual needs.

This principle is illustrated by the case of Nash v, Inman. In this case, P supplied to
D, a student clothing worth £145. His father also had supplied D with proper clothes.
Held: the clothes supplied by P were not necessary to D since he was sufficiently
supplied with suitable clothes by his father

Application :
Based on the given situation, Danny ordered a laptop with the latest features for
graphic design and video editing worth RM12,000 from Techno-Trend Ltd (TL) but
then he failed to pay it as he did not have enough money at that time.

By applying the above principles, Danny is liable for the payment of the laptop worth
RM12,000 because the laptop was bought for his study in architecture. The contract
between Danny and TL is valid as the laptop is one of his necessaries. Therefore, TL
is entitled to the payment.

Conclusion :
In conclusion, Danny is liable for the payment of the laptop as it was bought for his
study.