Assignment Question

On the 29th October 2012, Steven advertised in the New Focus Paper, Yamaha
Piano latest model, excellent condition, RM15,000, interested please call
0161234567.
On the 1st November 2012, Tanny after seeing the piano offered RM10,000 to
buy the piano. Steven said I will not sell it below RM14,000 and I will not sell it to
anyone else before 7th November 2012.
Tanny went to Australia for few days and came back to Malaysia on the 7th of
the November 2012. On the 8th of November 2012, Tanny decided to post a letter
accepting to buy the piano for RM14,000. Steven received this letter on the 11th of
November 2012.
Discuss the above issues and explain if Tannys letter of acceptance is valid.

Acknowledgement

At first, I would like to thank to my lecture Miss Shazanah for her valuable guidance
and advice of this assignment. I would also like to thank her showing me some
example that related to the topic of my project. Besides that, I would like to thank to
Pei Ling, for her advice and example of cases recommendation on this assignment. I
would like to thank my cousin by being my assistance because without them to guide
my assignment cannot be done properly like this. Other than that, I wish to admit to
Lim Sin Wei, Ranjeeta Segran and Chai Kin Kit for assistance and help me out with
their abilities. Lastly, I wish to thanks my family for their support and encouragement
through the duration of my study.

ISSUE
The first issue is Whether Steven is advertising an offer or an invitation to treat?
LAW
Under section 2(a) of the Contracts Act (CA), provides that when one person
signifies to another willingness to do or to avoid from doing anything, with a view to
obtaining the approve of that other from doing anything, the act or abstinence, Steven
is said to make a proposal. A proposal can be made to an individual, to a class of
person, a firm and a company or to the public at large. An offer needs to be difference
from an invitation to treat.1 An offer will guide to a binding contract on acceptance, an
invitation to treat cannot be accepted it is only an invitation for offers. An invitation to
treat is not an offer but is mean of a persons willingness to negotiate a contract. In the
case of( Harvey v Facey (1983)2 an indication by the owner of property that he or she
might be interested in selling at a certain price such as has been regarded as an
invitation to treat, for example Harvey sent a Telegram to Facey which stated:- Will
you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price answer paid. Facey
replied by telegram: lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen RM900. Harvey then replied
: we argee to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of RM900 asked by you, please send
us your title deed in order that we may get early possession . The held that there was
no contract conclude between the parties.3 The other example cases is (Gibson v
Manchester City Council(1979)4. Gibson v Manchester City Council case is being
run by the Conservation Party which is running a policy of selling council houses to
the an inhabitant. Mr Gibson applied for details of his house price and mortgage
terms on a form of the council. In February 1971, The treasurer replied, the
corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of 2725
pound less 20% is 2180 pound is an freehold, this letter should not be regarded as a
firm offer of a mortgage. If like to make formal application to buy your Council house
1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation to treat
2 Harvey v Facey(1893)AC552
3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v_Facey
4 Gibson v Manchester City Council(1979)U KHL 6

please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible.
In March 1971, Mr Gibson completed the application form but except for the
purchase price and returned it to the council, in May, the Labour party came back to
power and halted sales. Mr Gibson was told that he could not complete the purchase
so Mr Gibson sued the council arguing that a binding contract had already come into
face.5

APPLICATION
The case is about an adverting and invitation to treat. That advertised this case is
Steven is a seller that advertised the latest model Yamaha piano in an excellent
condition price RM15,000. Under Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act (CA) is to
provides that when one person signifies to another willingness to do or to abstain from
doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of that other form doing anything
the act or abstinence. Same in the case (Harvey v Facey), Steven advertised in the
New Focus Paper for the post to sell the piano in the excellent condition RM15,000. If
who have interest to buy the piano can call him was subsequently accepted. The held
is advertisement is invitation to treat. Other than that, the other example case is
(Gibson v Manchester City Council), this example case is being run by the
Conversation Party which is running a policy of selling council houses to the an
inhabitant.

CONCLUSION
Since that Steven is advertised the latest model of the brand Yamaha Piano in
the excellent condition of RM15,000.

5 En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson v Manchester City Council

ISSUE
The second issued is Whether Steven is making an offer or counter offer?
LAW
According to the Section 2(a) of the Contract Act(CA) that provides when one
person signifies to another willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything with a
view to obtaining the assent of that other form doing anything. In the case of (Carlil v
Carbolic Smoke Ball(1893)6, the held of offer could be made to the entire world
because the contract will only be made with the limited portion of the public who
came forward and performed the condition on faith of the advertisement. Another case
is (Willams v Cawardine(1833)7, The facts Walter Carwardine was murdered in
Hereford. The Plantiff (P) , Mrs Williams gave evidence at the Hereford assizes
against two suspects but did not say all she knew, the suspects were acquitted. On the
date of 25 April 1831, the victims brother and Defendant (D), Mr Carwardine,
published a handbill stating there would be a 20 pound for whoever would give such
information as would lead to the discovery of the murder of Walter Carwardine. In
August 1831, Mrs Williams gave more information which led to the conviction of two
men including a Mr John Williams, the Plaintiffs (P) husband, she claimed the
reward but Mr Carwardine refused to pay. The trail her motives were examined, it was
found that she knew about the reward but she did not give information specifically to
get the reward. Other than that, in the case of counter offer (Hyde v Wrench(1840)8,
6 Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co(1893)1 QB 256
7 Williams v Cawardine(1833)EWHC KB J 44
8 Hyde v Wrench(1840)49 ER 132

the facts of this case is the defendant, wrench offered to sell his farm in Luddenham to
Hyde for 1200 pound an offer which Hyde declined. On the date 6 June 1840, Wrench
wrote to Hydes agent offering to sell the farm for 1000 pound it was the final offer
and that he would not alter from it. The Plaintiff (P), Hyde offered 950 pound in his
letter by 8 of June and after examining he offer Wrench refused to accept and
informed Hyde of this on 27 June. On 29th Hyde agreed to buy the farm for 1000
pound without any additional agreement from Wrench. Wrench refused to sell the
farm to him and he sued for breach of contract. The court held that no contract existed
between them because the plaintiff, Hyde had rejected the original proposal 8 of June
so that he was no longer capable of accepting. For other example cases is ( Low Kar
Yit & Ors v Mohamed Isa)9.
APPLICATION
This case is an offer or counter offer. On the 1st November 2012, after Tanny
seeing the piano that he offered RM10,000 to buy the piano. Steven said he will not
sell it below RM14,000 and will not sell it to anyone else before 7th November 2012.
Under Section 2(a) of the Contract Act(CA), Steven is the seller that advertised on the
29th October 2012, he advertised the latest model Yamaha Piano in the New Focus
Paper in an excellent condition RM15,000 if interested please call but after Tanny
seeing the piano offered RM10,000 and Steven said he will not sell it below
RM14,000 and will not sell it before 7th November 2012. In (Carlil v Carbolic
Smoke Ball(1893) case, the Defendant (D) issued an advertisement in which they
offered to pay 100 pound to and person succumbed to influenza after having used one
of their smoke ball in a specified manner and for a specified period. The Plaintiff
(P)brought and used the smoke ball as prescribed and successfully caught influenza.
She used the company for a promised reward. By applying this case ( Carlil v
Carbolic Smoke Ball) for an example because it is consider the part of offer. They can
be offeror, promisor or proposer that the person who make the offer and one more
could be offeree or promise that the person to whom the offer was directed or made.

CONCLUSION
9 Low Kar Yit v Mohamed Isa(1963)MLJ 165

Since that Steven advertised it on 29th October 2012 and said if interest please call,
but after Tanny seeing the piano, Steven said he will not sell to anyone else before 7th
November 2012. This is why Tanny failed to buy from Steven because of his low
offer to buy at RM10,000 which Steven stated that he would not sell below
RM14,000.

ISSUE
Whether Tanny could sue Steven for the breach of contract?
LAW
Under the Section 2(b) of the Contract Act(CA) is when a person to whom the
proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted, a
proposal when accepted become a promise. If the acceptance is made in words, the
acceptance is said to be expressed, if the acceptance made other than in words the
acceptance is said to be implied. According to the Section 4(2) of the Contract
Act(CA) there is a difference in time when the communication of acceptance is
complete as against the proposer and the acceptor(promisee). The sentence as against
the proposer the communication of an acceptance is complete when it is put into a
course of transmission, other than that, as against the acceptor the communication of
acceptance is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Example in
the case of (Adam v Lindsell(1818)10 is an English contract case regarded as the first
case towards to set up the postal rule for acceptance of an offer. Normally, in any
form of acceptance must be communicated obviously to an offeror, it was found that
where a letter of acceptance is posted an offer is accepted in course of post. For
example about this cases, on the date of Tuesday 2 September 1818, the defendant
sent a letter to the plaintiffs offering to sell wool and requiring an answer by the
return of the post. The next example cases is (Ignatius v bell(1913)11, the Plantiff
(P)sued for specific performance over his rights to purchase the defendants land, the
10 Adams v Linsell(1818)EWHC KB J 59

option was to be exercised on or before 20th August 1912 by a notice in writing. The
plaintiff exercised the option a letter on 16 August, the defendant only received the
letter on the 25 August 1912. The Plaintiff(P) sued the defendant for specific
performance for Defendant(D) to perform the contract. On the other hand, the
acceptance is complete as against the acceptor when it comes to the knowledge of the
proposer. While the proposer is bound upon detail of acceptance by the acceptor, the
acceptor is not bound until it was actually received by the proposer. Many more cases
like (Howell Securities Ltd v Huges(1974)12 and (Household Fire Insurance Co v
Grant(1879)13.

APPLICATION
By applying this case (Adams v Linsell(1818), Steven said he will not sell the
piano to anyone else before 7th November 2012 and not sell it below the price
RM14,000. So, Tanny went to Australia for few days and come back to Malaysia on
the 7th November 2012. On the date of 8th of November 2012 Tanny decided to post a
letter accepting to buy the piano but Steven received the letter on the 11th of
November 2012. Under section 4(2) of the Contract Act(CA) there is a difference in
time when the communication of acceptance is complete as against the proposer and
the acceptor. Tanny post the letter accepting to buy the piano for RM14,000 is valid
provided that the piano is still available, even though the letter Steven received on the
11th November 2012.
CONCLUSION
Since Tanny is decided to post the letter accepting to buy the piano for RM14,000
is valid provided that the piano is still available because Steven received the letter on
the 11th November 2012.
11 Ignatius v Bell(1913)2 FMSLR 115
12 Howell Securities Ltd v Huges(1974)1 WLR 155/www.elawresources.co_uk/Holwell-Securities-v-Hughes.php.
13 Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant(1879)LR 4 Ex D 216/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_Fire_Insurance_Company_v_Grant

FINAL CONCLUSION
Lastly, the three issue of the conclusion combined in one paragraph. Since that
Steven is advertised the latest model of the brand Yamaha Piano in the excellent
condition of RM15,000. Steven advertised on the 29th October 2012 and said if
interest please call 016-1234567 but on the 1st November 2012, after Tanny seeing the
piano offered RM10,000. Steven said that he will not sell it below the price of
RM15,000 and will not sell it to anyone else before 7th November 2012. This is
because Steven advertised the price in RM15,000, so that Tanny failed to buy from
Steven because of his low offer at the price RM10,000, which Steven stated that he
would not sell below RM14,000. Besides that, Tanny went to Australia and came back
to Malaysia on the date of 7th November 2012, at the 8th November 2012, Tanny
decided to post a letter accepting to buy the piano for RM14,000 and Steven received
the letter on the 11th November 2012. So that, Tanny post the letter accepting to buy
the piano for RM14,000 is valid that provided that the piano is still available.

Bibliography
Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invition to treat. (15 FEB 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson v City Coucil. (16 FEB 2013)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_v_Facey. (16 FEB 2013)
www.e-lawresources.co_uk/Holwell-Securities-v-Hughes.php. (17 FEB 2013)
http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Household_Fire_Insurance_Company_v_Grant.
(17 FEB 2013)