Issue Alice had lost her folder which containing all her certificates, it is found by the bus conductor.

The bus conductor made a trip to University and returned the folder to Alice. Alice would reward the conductor with RM500. Once her admission formalities were finalized, she refuses to hand over the reward, saying that there was no agreement as there was no consideration to support her promise. The main issue in this question is whether Alice bound to pay the conductor the amount she had promised. Law For there to be a valid contract, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. Offer is defined in S2 (a) Contract Act 1950 as when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. Proposal bears the same meaning as offer in English law. Proposal is an agreement between 2 or more parties is constituted by a proposal and an acceptance of it. Proposal or offer can be made to a specific individual, a specific group of people or the whole world which can be accepted by anyone provided he fulfills the condition. If the condition is fulfilled, the offeror must fulfill his part of the agreement like the case of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball CO (1893). In the case of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball CO (1893), an advertisement, catalogues and brochures are an invitation to treat unless the advertiser commits himself. Invitation to Treat is the invitation to make an offer or proposal. Sometimes, it may be difficult to ascertain whether it is an offer/ proposal or Invitation to treat. By the way, its importance to differentiate them. This is because if an offer is accepted it will give rise to a binding contract enforceable through the courts in most cases. However, an Invitation to treat is not an offer/proposal and the person responding to such invitation will only be able to enforce his offer if the other person accepts it. However, in Majumder v Attorney (1967) and Pattridge v Crittenden (1987), an advertisement is an Invitation to Treat. Acceptance can be made by conduct, orally and of course in writing. For acceptance by conduct see Carlils case where the response to the challenge to use smokeball constituted acceptance. In S2 (b) Contracts Act 1950 states that when a person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise. In S7 (b) Contracts Act 1950 provides that acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the offeror prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. There must be some act on the part of the offeree to indicate his acceptance. Thus, an acceptance must be made by some positive act. Mere, silence is not an acceptance. If the offeror prescribes the mode of acceptance, then acceptance must take place according to the method specified. In Felthouse v Bindley (1862), silence does not amount to acceptance. In Fraser v Everett (1889), there is no rule of law like the saying Silence gives consent. Consideration is defined by S2(d) Contracts Act 1950, when, at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. There are three types of consideration which is executed, executory or past consideration. Executed consideration is a performed, or executed, act in return for a promise. It is an act done at the time. Executory consideration is a promise given for a promise, not a performed act. It is a promise to do in the future. For past consideration, it provides that is the act was done at the desire of the promisor, and then such an act would constitute consideration. By the way, as a general rule, English Law does not recognize past consideration. However, one of the exception to this rule is laid down in the English case of Lampleigh V Brathwait(1615), where it was held that an act originally done at the request of the request of the promisor, a promise made subsequent to the doing of that act, was deemed binding since that act constituted consideration. the defidinition of the word " consideration" in S2 (d) Contracts Act 1950 appears extensive enough to cover the aforementioned rule. It can found in the case of Kepong Prospecting Limited V Schmidt. Though S2 (d) Contracts Act 1950 may not cover all cases of past consideration, one of the exceptions to the general rule of consideration, as provided in S26 Contracts Act 1950, appears to cover most of other such cases. S26 (b) Contracts Act 1950 provides that an

agreement made without consideration is void unless it is a promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. Illustration (c) of S26 lends further support to the view that past consideration in the circumstances provied constitutes a valid consideration. For example, A finds B's purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A RM50. This is a valid contract. This principle was applied in the Indian case of Venkata Chinnaya V Verikatara Ma'ya (1881). Under Malaysia law, the consideration need not be adequate. Explanatin 2 to S26 Contracts Act 1950 provies that an agreement is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate. Illustration (f) to S26 Contracts Act 1950 shows the application of the rule. Application On the facts, Alice lost her folder and this was found by the bus conductor who returned it to her on his own accord. This is the act already been done before a promise in return is given. Once the conductor returned the folder, only then Alice promised to pay him RM500. This is the promise by Alice has done after the bus conductor returned the folder to her. Therefore, it is an agreement which is without consideration. An agreement made without consideration is void, but in this cases it is the exception which is under S26 Contracts Act 1950. In S26 (b) Contracts Act 1950, it said an agreement made without consideration is void unless it is a promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. According to S2 (d) Contracts Act 1950, S26 (b) Contracts Act 1950 and Illustration (c) to S26, this is a valid contract. On the fact, Alice get back her folder which containing all her certificates. The bus conductor will get RM500 reward from Alice.This is a valid contract which we called past consideration. So, Alice can't refuse to hand over the reward, and said there was no agreement as there was no consideration to support her promise. If Alice refuses to hand over the reward, the bus conductor can sue Alice for the breach of contract. Therefore, there is a valid contract formed between Alice and the bus conductor. Conclusion The bus conductor can sue Alice for the RM500 rewards. There is a valid contract formed between Alice and the bus conductor.