Scribd
Upload
512 views2 pages

How To Answer Problem Based Question

Semek advertised a reward of RM8000 for the return of her lost cat, Che'Ta. Bonnita found the cat in her backyard and returned it to Semek without knowledge of the advertised reward. The next day, Bonnita saw the newspaper advertisement listing the reward. As Bonnita's lawyer, the document outlines analyzing whether there was a legal contract formed between Semek and Bonnita based on Malaysia's Contract Act 1950. The lawyer concludes that no contract was formed as the communication of Semek's offer/proposal for the reward was incomplete under the Act since Bonnita was unaware of the advertised reward when returning the cat.

Uploaded by

Nur Khaleeda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
512 views2 pages

How To Answer Problem Based Question

Semek advertised a reward of RM8000 for the return of her lost cat, Che'Ta. Bonnita found the cat in her backyard and returned it to Semek without knowledge of the advertised reward. The next day, Bonnita saw the newspaper advertisement listing the reward. As Bonnita's lawyer, the document outlines analyzing whether there was a legal contract formed between Semek and Bonnita based on Malaysia's Contract Act 1950. The lawyer concludes that no contract was formed as the communication of Semek's offer/proposal for the reward was incomplete under the Act since Bonnita was unaware of the advertised reward when returning the cat.

Uploaded by

Nur Khaleeda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TUTORIAL ON LAW OF CONTRACT - HOW TO ANSWER PROBLEM

BASED QUESTION
QUESTION:
Semek has lost her Persian cat, CheTa. She advertised in a newspaper, Utusan
Borneo, a reward of RM8000 to anyone who found and returned Che Ta to her. Bonnita,
Semeks neighbor who was cleaning her backyard found a Persian cat up on her durian
tree. She knew that the cat belonged to Semek, so she returned it to her. Bonnita only
knew of the promised reward the next day after reading the advertisement in Utusan
Borneo.
Bonnita come to your office to solve this problem. You, as her lawyer, please advise her.
ANSWER:FORMULA (I+L+A+C)
(1) I= ISSUES
Whether the communication of proposal is complete between Semek and
Bonnita?
Whether Bonnita has right to claim the reward of RM8000 from Semek?
I = INTRODUCTION
Definition of offer: Statement or other indication made by the individual
which prepared to enter into a contract with another on certain terms.
Section 2(a) of CA 1950: when one person signifies to another his
willingness to do or abstain from doing anythinghe is said to make a
proposal.
Section 4(1) of CA 1950: A proposal is only complete when it comes to
the knowledge of the offeree.
(2) L = LAW + ILLUSTRATION + CASES
Unless there is communication of the proposal as suggested in Section
2(a) of CA 1950, when one person signifies to another his willingness to
do or abstain from doing anything there can be no acceptance to form
an agreement.
The communication of offer is complete only when the offer comes to the
knowledge of the offeree- Section 4(1) of CA 1950.
If the offer has not been communicated to the offeree, there is no
acceptance could be made to form a binding contract.
PREPARED BY: IKHWAN NAGUIB BIN JUSOH | FACULTY OF LAW | UITM SAMARAHAN
II
2015

TUTORIAL ON LAW OF CONTRACT - HOW TO ANSWER PROBLEM


BASED QUESTION
Illustration: A party who casually returns a lost property to its owner cannot
legally claim a reward if he is unaware of it at the time but subsequently
discovers the existence of an offer of reward for its return.
Case: R v Clarke [1927], the Australian Government offered a reward for
the information leading to the arrest n conviction of the criminal. One of
the criminal, Clarke gave info which leads to the arrest of Y. Clarke was
later acquitted n claimed for the reward. The Court held that he was not
entitled for the reward because he was not aware of the reward when he
gave the information to the government.
(3) A = APPLICATION
By applying section 4 (1) of the CA 1950 and the case of R v Clarks,
Bonnita has no right to claim the reward of RM8000 from Semek.
This is because at the time she returned Che Ta to Semek, she was not
aware of the advertisement of reward in Utusan Borneo.
In other words, the communication of proposal/ offer was not complete by
virtue of section 4(1) of CA 1950.
(4) C = CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, my advice to Bonnita is, she cannot claim for the reward of
RM8000 as the communication of proposal was incomplete by virtue of section 4
(1) of CA 1950 as she was not aware of the advertisement of reward in Utusan
Borneo.

PREPARED BY: IKHWAN NAGUIB BIN JUSOH | FACULTY OF LAW | UITM SAMARAHAN
II
2015

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy