LAW OF CONTRACT SEMESTER 1

DIL 1232 2023/2024

LAW OF CONTRACT
(DIL1232)
SEMESTER 1, 2023/2024

TOPIC: CASE REVIEW 1

ASSIGNED BY:
MADAM FATIHAH BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN

PREPARED BY:
IMAN ALYAH BAIDURI BINTI YUSRI
(DIL222034)
MASTURA SYALINA BINTI IZHAM RIZAL
(DIL223005)

1
LAW OF CONTRACT SEMESTER 1
DIL 1232 2023/2024

QUESTION:

Gianna had lost her British Shorthair cat, Ethereal. She advertised in a newspaper offering
a reward of RM1000 to those who found and returned it to her. After two days, Hannah
found Ethereal wandering at the park nearby. She immediately knew that the cat belonged
to Gianna based on its neck collar. She returned Ethereal to Gianna and Gianna accepted it
without awarding Hannah since she did not ask for it.

The next week, Hannah found out about the reward from her mother, she told everything
to her mother. Her mother urges her to claim the reward. Hannah went to Gianna's house
the next day and asked to claim the reward of RM1000 from Gianna.

However, Gianna refuses to pay it. She said that Hannah did not communicate to her the
intention to accept the offer of the reward. She also contended that Hannah only knew the
offer after she was done and only claimed after she returned Ethereal.

Upon dissatisfaction, Hannah seeks your advice with the intention to sue Gianna for the
reward. Advise her.

2
LAW OF CONTRACT SEMESTER 1
DIL 1232 2023/2024

ANSWER:

A contract becomes voidable if the elements needed are incomplete. As stated under
Section 2(b) of the Contract Act 1950, one of the elements that are needed is acceptance. In
Hannah's case, there is no communication of acceptance to the offer that was advertised when
Hannah only learned about it after she had returned Ethereal to Ginna.

To support the above statement, as stated under Section 4(1) of the Contract Act 1950,
the communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to
whom it is made. Referring to illustration (a) in Section 4 of the Contract Act 1950; a proposes,
by letter, to sell a house to B at a certain price; the communication of the proposal is complete
when B receives the letter. In relation to Hannah's case, she was unaware of the reward; hence, no
communication occurred, resulting in a voidable contract, meaning there is no contract binding
both parties.

This case has similarities to the R v Clarke case. Under the Australian Crown Suits Act
1898, Evan Clarke attempted to collect the £1000 prize advertised by the Australian government
for providing information that led to the conviction of the killer of two police officers. Clark had
seen the advertisement in May stating that such a reward would be granted. However, Clark
opted to provide the information (which he had meant to conceal at first before changing his
mind) while on trial as an accomplice to the murder in June. According to the evidence reported,
he provided the information to clear himself and not in response to the offer of reward when he
told the police that the information was "exclusively for the purpose of clearing his name."
Although Clarke had seen the offer, it was not on his mind at the time he provided the
information, and the court held this to be equivalent to not knowing the offer. As a result, the
court denied the claim he made.

Therefore, it is very evident that under contract law, a contract becomes voidable if the
elements needed are incomplete. In Hannah’s case, there is no communication of acceptance to
the offer that was advertised when Hannah only learned about it after she had returned Ethereal
to Ginna thus to conclude this case, Hannah does not have the right to claim the reward since
there is no contract binding both parties.

3
LAW OF CONTRACT SEMESTER 1
DIL 1232 2023/2024

REFERENCES

1. Malaysia Contract Act 1950

2. Australian Crown Suits Act 1898
3. https://lom.agc.gov.my/ilims/upload/portal/akta/LOM/EN/Act%20136.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Clarke#cite_note-R_v_Clarke_HCA-1