Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
OFFER |
SECTION 2(a): offeror show his willingness to do or not to do in order to get acceptance from the offeree. |
DEFINITION OF OFFER |
|
|
AUCTION |
Case: Harris v Nickerson court held that plaintiff cannot claim from defendant expenses to attend an auction advertised by defendant |
DIFINITION OF INVITATION TO TREAT |
|
|
TENDER |
Case: Harvela Investment Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada the court held that defendant is not merely making an invitation to treat, but is actually making an offer. The offer is exist when defendant accept the higher bid from 2 parties who want to buy the company's shares |
DIFINITION OF INVITATION TO TREAT |
|
|
DISPLAY OF GOODS |
Case: Fisher v Bell the court held that displaying an illegal flick-knife for sale (display of goods) is an invitation to treat. The accusation(tuduhan) against the defendant was not valid |
DIFINITION OF INVITATION TO TREAT |
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
Case: Majumber v Attorney General of Sarawak the court held that an advertisement for post a doctor is an invitation to treat. This is because the advertisement for post a doctor is to promote other parties to either fulfills / not the condition that has assigned. |
DIFINITION OF INVITATION TO TREAT |
|
|
SECTION 4(1) |
The offer become valid when it come to knowledge from offeree. |
WHEN AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
Case: R v Clarke |
The court held that Clarke's action by giving information to the police that leads to catch of a wanted criminal is not an acceptance because he doesn't know about the offer of reward |
WHEN AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
SECTION 30 |
An agrement or an offer has to clear in order to have a valid contract |
WHEN AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
Case: Guthing v Lynn |
The court held that term 'the horse is lucky' is too vague(kabur). Thus, the contract is void |
WHEN AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
SECTION 5(1) |
Offer may revoke his offer at any time before acceptance |
WHEN AN OFFER MAY BE REVOKED |
|
|
SECTION 4(3)(a) |
Once the revocation was made, it was valid on the part of the offeror |
WHEN REVOCATION OF AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
SECTION 4(3)(b) |
Revocation on the part of the offeree is valid once he knows about the revocation |
WHEN REVOCATION OF AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
Case: Byrne v Van Tienhoven |
The court held that, revocation is valid since it arrived after the acceptance made |
WHEN REVOCATION OF AN OFFER WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
SECTION 2(b) |
Offeree show his willingness to get acceptance from offeror (give & take) |
DIFINITION OF ACCEPTANCE |
|
|
GENARAL RULE |
Communication of an acceptance completes when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror |
METHODS OF ACCEPTANCE (WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE IS VALID) |
|
|
POSTAL RULE |
Communication of an acceptance completes as against the offeror when the acceptance letter is posted by the offeree. |
METHODS OF ACCEPTANCE (WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE IS VALID) |
|
|
SECTION 4(2)(a) |
Communication of an acceptance completes as against the offeror once acceptance letter is posted |
METHODS OF ACCEPTANCE (WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE IS VALID) |
|
|
SECTION 4(2)(b) |
Communication of an acceptance completes as against the offeree, when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror |
METHODS OF ACCEPTANCE (WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE IS VALID) |
|
|
Case: Household Fire Insurance v Grant |
The court held that the valid contract exist between them. The acceptance complete as against the offeror when the acceptance letter is put in a course of transmission to him |
METHODS OF ACCEPTANCE (WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE IS VALID) |
|
|
SECTION 7(a) |
The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified in order to convert an offer into promise
Case: Hyde v Wrench Court held that the defendant can't accept the original offer since plaintiff made a counter-offer. |
CONDITIONS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE |
|
|
SECTION 7(b) |
Offeror must state/prescribes(tentukan) the manner in which it is to be accepted in order to convert an offer into promise |
CONDITIONS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE |
|
|
Case: Ignatius v Bell |
Court held that defendant is bind(mengikat) by the contract since parties to the contract agree to use postal service as manner of acceptance |
CONDITIONS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE |
|
|
SECTION 5(2) |
Offeree may revoke the acceptance at any time before the offeror know the acceptance |
WHEN AN ACCEPTANCE MAY BE REVOKED |
|
|
SECTION 4(3)(a) |
Once the revocation was made, it was valid on the part of offeree |
WHEN REVOCATION OF AN ACCEPTANCE WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
SECTION 4(3)(b) |
Revocation on the part of the offeror is valid onve he knows about the revocation |
WHEN REVOCATION OF AN ACCEPTANCE WILL BECOME VALID |
|
|
CONSIDERATION(balasan) |
SECTION 2(d): when offeree do something or not to do something on request from the offeror |
DIFINITION OF CONSIDERATION |
|
|
1) CONSIDERATION MUST COME FROM BOTH PARTIES |
Case: Combe v Combe Plaintiff claims was rejected by court because there is no consideration for defendant promise |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
2) CONSIDERATION MAY COME FROM THE THIRD PARTY |
Case: Venkatachinnaya v Verikataramaraya Court held that there is a contract between them even when the consideration comes from their mother(third party) |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
3) CONSIDERATION NEED NOT BE ADEQUATE(mencukupi) |
Must has some value with consent(persetujuan) from parties or without any force/compulsion Case: Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock Court held that a payment of RM500 by appellant to the respondent as a price to buy respondent's estate is adequate consideration |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
5) PAYMENT OF SMALLER SUM MAY SETTLE THE WHOLE AMOUNTS OF DEBTS |
Case: Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
3 TYPES OF CONSIDERATION |
a) Executory * promise come first before the promise(other person) is doing b) Executed * promise come first before an act is doing c) Past * act come first before the promise is doing |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
MORAL OBLIGATION IS NOT A VALID CONSIDERATION |
Case: Eastwood v Kenyon Court held that it is a moral obligation on plaintiff to raise his dependant well. Thus, there is no consideration. |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
PUBLIC OBLIGATION IS NOT A VALID CONSIDERATION |
Case: Collin v Godefroy Court held that the plaintiff action to give statement as defendant's witness are everyone duties to help court to uphold(menegakkan) justice. |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
FORMER OBLIGATION IS NOT A VALID CONSIDERATION |
Case: Stilk v Myrick Court held that the crews are under obligation to perform in case of emergency to bring the ship to safe destination. Thus, there is not a valid consideration went a ship captain promise to pay extra wages to the crews that passed away during the voyage. |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
CONSIDERATION MUST BE LAWFUL |
SECTION 24: Consideration must not be something that a) forbidden(dilarang) by law b) c) fraudulent(penipuan) d) implies injury to the person/property of another e) immoral(x bermoral), / opposed(menentang) to public policy |
RULE ON CONSIDERATION |
|
|
CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY 1 PARTY IS ONLY VALID IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATION |
SECTION 26(a): promise made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation. However it must be done in writing and registered SECTION 26(b): promise for past consideration SECTION 26(c): promise to pay bad debts |
|
|
|
DEFINITION |
Parties to the agreement are ready to face consequence to sue or not to sue if fails to perform obligation under the agreement |
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION |
|
|
BUSINESS AGREEMENT |
Case: Rose & Frank v Jr. Compton Bros Court of Appeal held that the contract was not legally enforceable(dikuatkuasakan). The intentions of the parties were sufficient(mencukupi) to override the presumption of intention to create legal relations |
2 COURT'S PRESUMPTIONS(anggapan) OR ASSUMPTIONS(andaian) |
|
|
FAMILY AGREEMENT (without intention) |
Case: Balfour v Balfour Where a husband's promise to pay his wife an allowance of £30 a week during his absence on business was deemed unenforceable and this principle is not absolute.
Case: Merrit v Merrit Where a husband who left his wife agreed to transfer title of their house to her, if she paid off the remainder of the mortgage was held to be enforceable. |
2 COURT'S PRESUMPTIONS(anggapan) OR ASSUMPTIONS(andaian) |
|
|
FAMILY AGREEMENT (with intention) |
Case: Jones v Padavaton A mother made a promise to her daughter that she would pay her an allowance of $200 a month, & provide her with a house, if she moved to England and studied for the bar. The Court of Appeal held that the mother held title to the house, as the agreement was purely domestic |
2 COURT'S PRESUMPTIONS(anggapan) OR ASSUMPTIONS (andaian) |
|
|
BUSINESS AGREEMENT |
Usually parties of the contract can sue each other unless the agreement saids otherwise |
2 COURT'S PRESUMPTIONS(anggapan) OR ASSUMPTIONS (andaian) |
|
|
FAMILY AGREEMENT |
Usually parties of the contract can't sue each other unless the agreement saids otherwise |
2 COURT'S PRESUMPTIONS(anggapan) OR ASSUMPTIONS (andaian) |
|
|
CAPACITY |
SECTION 11: Every person that want to make a contract need to reach 18 years old & above and must sane/sound |
WHO MAY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT |
|
|
CAPACITY |
SECTION 12: He is capable of forming a rational judgment at the time he makes the contact |
WHO IS SOUND PERSON |
|
|
CAPACITY |
EFFECT: Contract is void / lack of capacity to the contract Case: Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose Appellant gives credits to respondent(a minor) who charges a house as a security. The court held that the charge is invalid because lack of capacity to contact |
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF CONTRACT ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
CAPACITY |
EFFECT: Contract is not valid Case: Natesan v Thanalethumi and Anor A minor contructed with plaintiff after making false statement about his age. When sued, he use of lack of capacity as reason. The court held that misrepresentation does not obstruct(menghalang) the minor to use lack of capacity as defence |
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF CONTRACT ENTERED BY A MUNOR WHO MISREPRESENTED HIS/HER AGE |
|
|
NECESSARIES CONTRACT |
How to determine the goods is necessity goods or not? a) Minor's condition of life/standard of life b) Minor acrual requirement c) Amount of good wether sufficient or not |
WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACT THAT CAN BE ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
NECESSARIES CONTRACT |
Case: Nash v Inman A tailor sued a minor to whom he had supplied clothes. The minor was an undergraduate at Cambridge University. The clothes not necessary as he already had sufficient clothing |
WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACT THAT CAN BE ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
MARRIAGE CONTRACT |
Case: Rajeshwary v Balakrishnan Defendant broke a promise to marry plaintiff, both of them are Hindu. When plaintiff claim damages for breach of contract, court granted the claims even though plaintiff is a minor |
WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACT THAT CAN BE ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
SCHOLARSHIP CONTRACT |
Case: Government of Malaysia v Gurcharan Gingh Gurcharan received scholarship from government to attend trainings as a teacher & for that he is to serve with government for 5 years after graduated. Gucharan left before full term. The court held that education is a necessity to a minor |
WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACT THAT CAN BE ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
EMPLOYMENT OR APPRENTICE CONTRACT |
Case: Doyle v White City Stadium A minor was bound by the term of this agreement with the stadium when he agreed to undergo a training to be boxer |
WHAT TYPES OF CONTRACT THAT CAN BE ENTERED BY A MINOR |
|
|
FREE CONSENT |
SECTION 13: When 2 or more person 100% agree about the same things in the same sense |
DEFINITION |
|
|
DIFINITION: SECTION 15 |
XXX |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY COERCION: SECTION 14(a) |
|
|
PHYSICAL COERCION |
Case: Kesarmal a/l Lethumanan Das v Valiappa Chettiar The court decided that a sale contract made by the King's order infront of 2 Japanese officers during Japanese occupation in Malaysia is void |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY COERCION: SECTION 14(a) |
|
|
DIFINITION: SECTION 16 |
One of the parties has dominate position & uses that position to obtain unfair advantage over the other |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY UNDER INFLUENCE: SECTION 14(b) |
|
|
UNDER INFLUENCE |
Case: Inche Noriah v Shaik Ali Bin Umar Appellant, uneducated-old Malay woman depends wholly(penuh) on respondent to get supply of food & cloths. All matters are settled by respondent, until she has no idea of how much her own property's worth. Court held that plaintiff action that gave to respondent(nephew) an estate under a writing agreement was held to be made under undue influence. |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY UNDER INFLUENCE: SECTION 14(b) |
|
|
DIFINITION |
An act of giving a flase statement with intention to deceive(memperdaya) |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY FRAUD: SECTION 14(c) |
|
|
SECTION 17 |
Includes any of the followings act... a. A suggests as to a fact which he knows not true b. A concealed(sorok) a fact he believes to be true c. A made a promise without intention of performing it d. Any other act fitted to deceive e. Any act that declares to be fraudulent |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY FRAUD: SECTION 14(c) |
|
|
FRAUD |
Case: Kheng Chew Lian v Wong Tak Thong Court gives right to the respondent to repudiate (menolak) the second contract because it is made under fraud of section 17(a) & (b) |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY FRAUD: SECTION 14(c) |
|
|
DEFINITION: SECTION 18 |
Parties made untrue statement that believes it to be true & cause other parties enter into the contract. |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY MISREPRESENTATION: SECTION 14(d) |
|
|
MISREPRESENTATION |
Case: Bisset v Wilkinson Court held that contract of sale a poultry farm is valid even though the seller made a statement that farm can breed 2000 sheep is not true but he never breeds a sheep at the farm before |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY MISREPRESENTATION: SECTION 14(d) |
|
|
DIFINITION: SECTION 21 |
One parties make mistake statement to other parties and cause other parties enter the contract. |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY MISTAKE: SECTION 14(e) |
|
|
MISTAKE |
Case: Galloway v Galloway Court held that an agreement to divorce between plaintiff & defendant is void since both parties mistaken about their marital status (status perkahwinan)
Case: Flack v Williams Court held that a trade discussion of a contract to rent a ship is void because of a mistake on the identity of a subjeck matter. Plaintiff & defendant thought is different with each other. |
CONSENT IS NOT FREE AND VOIDABLE IF IT IS CAUSED BY MISTAKE: SECTION 14(e) |
|
|
SECTION 2(g) |
XXX |
WHAT IS VOID |
|
|
SECTION 2(i) |
XXX |
WHAT IS VOIDABLE |
