CASE STUDY

Mahmood Curry House wanted to refurbish its restaurant. The manager, Salim contacted
Trenz Furniture to enquire about the prices of tables and chairs. Based on the models and
number of items Salim required, Trenz Furniture faxed him a quotation for the sum of
RM20,000. Upon receiving the fax, Salim called Trenz Furniture and bargained the prize to
RM18,000. Trenz Furniture replied that it would think about the matter and get back to Salim
the next day.

The same afternoon, the assistant manager, Faros obtained a better quotation from Low
Price Furniture. The same models and number of items would only costs RM16,000. Salim
planned to purchase the furniture from Low Price Furniture instead.

Advise Salim.

The issues are whether there is a contract between Salim and Trenz Furniture.

Under section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950, an offer can be defined as when a
person signifies his willingness to do something, with a view other person agrees to offer it.
He is said to make purpose. However, this fall under invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is
only to invite people to make an offer. For example, inquiries and supply of information.

In the case of Harvey V Facey, the court held that the inquires and supply of
information was only invitation to create.

Based on section 2(a) and the case of Harvey V Facey, the inquires and supply of
information made by Salim is not an offer but it only invitation to treat because Salim
contacted Trenz Furniture to enquire about the price of table and chair. Salim offer low price
from RM20,000 to RM18,000. So, there is no contract existed.

In conclusion, the inquires and supply of information not an offer but only invitation to
treat. So, there is no contract between Salim and Trenz Furniture.