a) Discuss the relation between the case Carlill v.

Carbolic Smoke
Ball (1892) 1 QB 256 and section 8 Contract Act 1950. (5 marks)

Section 8 of Contract Act 1950 emphasize on performing the condition of the

proposal for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal , is an
acceptance of proposal. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball , defendant
make offer to the public at large where anyone who uses their ball according to
instruction and still caught influenza will be rewarded with money , Mrs
Carlill , the plaintiff still got Influenza even after following the instruction and
decided to sue them . The court held that even though is is Invitation To Treat ,
the act of Mrs Carlil accepting the condition in the advertisement , Mrs Carlil
had made an acceptance and therefore contract is made between parties as the
element of acceptance existed .

b) Lona enter into a cloth and abaya shop and interested to buy one abaya for
RM50.00. Lona took the abaya to the cashier desk. Lona
was informed by the cashier that there is a mistake as to the abaya's price
which is worth RM500.00 instead of RM50.00. Lona was not satisfied and
insisted on paying the latter price. The cashier refused to sell the abaya.
Advice Lona.(5 marks)

The issue is whether Lona can claimed from cashier for the price of RM50 , the
first price

Based on the principle of Invitation To Treat (ITT) ,which is an invitation to

other person to make an offer and is not intended to be binding and it is not
offer. It is an early stage before offer was made . It can be divided into several
types which is advertisement , booking form , display on goods on
shelves,Tenders , and auction.
By referring to the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash
Chemist , where defendant was being prosecuted in which they allowed the
selling of poison that required the supervision of pharmacist. Hence it was held
that , by applying the rules of ITT , the selling of the poison is considered as
ITT and it was the customer who made the offer when he presented the goods
on the cashier desk

As an application , ITT is only invitation for customer to make offer and does
not become an offer yet . Therefore contract is not conclude between lona and
the cashier .

In conclusion , there was no contract were formed between them and Lona
cannot claimed to pay for the first price.

c) Lim enters into Alley Supermarket (AS) and selects some canned food,
soap, shampoo, eggs, vegetables and fish. Lim puts the items in his shopping
trolley. Lim suddenly receive an emergency call from his wife, thus Lim left
all the items remain in the trolley. The staff in AS wants Lim to pay the all
items as he has placed it in the trolley, but Lim refused as he has an
emergency case. (177) Does Lim has to pay the items? Give reason to your
answer by referring to Contract Acts 1950 and relevant case.

The issue is whether Lim act’s constitute the offer or is it merely invitation to
treat (ITT)

Based on the provision of section 2(a) of Contract Act 1950 where it is said ,
when one person signifies to other his willingness to do or to abstain from
doing something , with a view that … A proposer is said to make an offer when
he offer something to another party with the intention that his offer will be
accepted. On the other hand , ITT must be distinguish with offer . ITT is
invitation to treat which means it is just an invitation to another person to
make an offer and it is not intended to be binding. For example of ITT is
auction , display of goods , advertisement and tenders. By referring to the case
of Pharmaceutical Society Of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist , where
defendant was alleged for selling the poison that were display on the shelves is
not allowed and required the supervision of registered pharmacist. It was held
that the display of goods on the shelves were merely an ITT . Offer will be made
once the offeror bring the goods to the cashier.

As for application , Lim acts by putting the items in his shopping trolley was
considered as ITT and is not an offer as the items were not being brought to the
cashier yet.

In conclusion , Lim was not entitled to pay the items as there was no contract
formed at the first place

d) Pali posted a letter to Labu offering him to sell a cabin for RM3,000.00,
Labu received Pali's letter and immediately wrote a letter saying, 'would you
sell the cabin at RM2,500.00? and posted it to Pali on the same day. Pali then
sell the cabin to his nephew one week after not receiving any respond from
Labu. Labu's letter reached Pali a week after the sale of the cabin. Discuss the
above issue by referring to Contract Act 1950 and case decided.
(10 marks)

The issue is whether there is valid contract between Pali and Labu

According to Section 7(a), in order to convert a proposal into a promise the

acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. This indicate that the acceptance
must not introduce new condition and shall not have any modification . If
theres modification it rejects and terminate the original offer and is called
Counter Offer .By referring to the case of Hyde v Wrench where A agree to sell
his farm for 1000 pound , B then ask to pay for 950 pound , the next day he
wrote to A saying that he is ready to pay for 1000 pound but A refused to sell .B
sued for specific performance.The court held that there were no contract
formed as the original contract was terminated by counter offer made by B.
As for the application , contract was not exist between Pali and Labu because
labu's wrote a letter saying, 'would you sell the cabin at RM2,500.00 which
terminate and counter the original offer of RM3,000. The letter is not an
acceptance to the offer but rather is counter offer.

In conclusion , Labu can’t claim from Pali . As he’s act has terminate the
original offer and therefore the contract was not valid.

Q3. Jona, Joni and Jonu were the security guards who worked with Syarikat
Keselamatan Sinar Mentari (SKSM). On their way to deposit money in the
ATM machine, Jona escaped with one box of the money. Joni and Jonu
immediately contacted their employer, SKSM. SKSM directed them to bring
the other boxes of money to the nearest police station. SKSM promised to pay
Jona's salary to them if they proceed to the police station with the money
safely. After having done with the work as directed, SKSM refused to pay as
promised. Advise Joni and Jonu.

The issue is whether Joni and Jonu entitled to the money promised to them as a
valid consideration.

According to section 26 (b) of Contract Acts 1950 agreement without

consideration is void , unless , is a promise to compensate for something done ;
it is a promise to compensate , wholly or in part , a person who has already
voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the
promisor was legally compellable to do . This indicate that by performing their
own duty or public duty does not amount to consideration. This can be seen in
case Stilk v Myrick where the captain made promise to pay extra wages to the
crew’s member for sailing the ship as for replacement for other sailor. Upon
return, he then refused to pay them and this issue was then brought to the
court. It was held that the promise of extra wages is not enforceable because
the crew member was only performing their existing duty and does not
constitute to valid consideration.In other words if that person already
obligated to do something under the contract , it does not provide new
consideration .

As in application , Joni ,Jonu acts by immediately contacted their employer,

SKSM. and bring the money , considered as fulfilling their obligatory duty as
security guards and does not entitled to new consideration. It was part of their
duty to ensure the safety .

In conclusion, both JOn where not entitled to the consideration as they were
doing what are they legally bound to do .