Professional Documents
Culture Documents
contexts, silence is not acceptance. For instance, in making contracts, silence is almost
never considered acceptance.
Answer :
An invitation to treat is where a person or business invites people to make an offer
to form a contract. It can be confused with an offer in that accepting an offer creates a
binding contract, whereas accepting an invitation to treat only constitutes making an
offer. An example of an invitation to treat is a store's ad in the Sunday paper. Conditional
auctions (those where the winning bid is subject to the seller's approval) are also
invitations to treat, but a traditional auction is an offer.
In the case of Majumder v Attorney General of Sarawak (1967) 1 MLJ 101, the
Federal Court held that an advertisement in the newspaper for the post of a doctor was
not an offer but merely an invitation to treat.
The clearest example of an invitation to treat is a tender (or bidding in the U.S.)
process. This was illustrated in the case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561,
where the defendants offered to sell by tender their stock and the court held that they
had not undertaken to sell to the person who made the highest tender, but
were inviting offers which they could then accept or reject as they saw appropriate. In
certain circumstances though, an invitation for tenders may be an offer. The clearest
example of this was seen inHarvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust of Canada (CI)
Ltd [1986] AC 207, where the defendants had made it clear that they were going to
accept the highest tender; the court held that this was an offer which was accepted by
the person who made the highest tender and that the defendants were in breach of
contract by not doing so.
An auction may be more ambiguous. Generally an auction may be seen as an
invitation to treat, with the property owner asking for offers of a certain amount and then
selecting which to accept as illustrated in Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148. However, if it
is stated by the owner that there is no reserve price or that there is a reserve price
beyond which offers will be accepted then the auction is most likely a contractual offer
which is accepted by the highest bidder; this was affirmed in the Court of
Appeal in Barry v Davies [2000] 1 WLR 1962.
A shop owner displaying their goods for sale is generally making an invitation to
treat (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern)
Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401). They are not obliged to sell the goods to anyone who is willing to
pay for them, even if additional signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display
of the goods. (But see bait and switch.) This distinction was legally relevant in Fisher v
Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, where it was held that displaying a flick knife for sale in a shop did
not contravene legislation which prohibited offering for sale such a weapon. The
distinction also means that if a shop mistakenly displays an item for sale at a very low
price it is not obliged to sell it for that amount.
Generally, advertisements are invitations to treat, so the person advertising is not
compelled to sell to every customer. In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, it
was held that where the appellant advertised to sell wild birds, was not offering to sell
them. Lord Parker CJ commented that it did not make "business sense" for
advertisements to be offers, as the person making the advertisement may find himself in
a situation where he would be contractually obliged to sell more goods than he actually
owned. In certain circumstances however, an advertisement can be an offer, a well
known example being the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB
256, where it was held that the defendants, who advertised that they would pay anyone
who used their product in the prescribed manner and caught influenza 100 and said
that they had deposited 1,000 in the bank to show their good faith, has made an offer
to the whole world and were contractually obliged to pay 100 to whoever accepted it by
performing the requested acts.
For an offer to be capable of becoming binding on acceptance, the offer must be
definite, clear, and final. If it is a mere preliminary move into negotiation which may lead
to a contract, it is not an offer but an invitation to treat. The offerer must have been
initiating negotiations from which an agreement may or may not in time result. The
important point to note is that, since an invitation to treat is not an offer, but rather a
phenomenal preliminary to an offer, an invitation to treat is not capable of an
acceptance which will result in a contract.
Answer :
Section 4(1) of the Sale of Goods Act defines a contract of sale of goods as a
contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the
buyer for a price. Thus, a sale occurs when the ownership or property in goods passes
to the buyer.
Section 5(1) of the Sale of Goods Act defines a contract of sale is made by an offer
to buy or sell goods at a price and by the acceptance of such an offer.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
Where under a contract of sale the property in goods is transferred from the seller
to the buyer the contract is called a sale ;but where the transfer of the property in the
goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some conditionthereafter to be
fulfilled the contract is called an agreement to sell.
An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are
fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.
Answer :
Hire
purchases
agreement
are
commonly
known
as
H.P
agreement
The Hire Purchase Act does not, in actuality, cover all hire purchase transactions.
The hire-purchase transactions falling outside the scope of the said Act is governed by
other general laws, such as the Contracts Act 1950. The Act only regulates hirepurchase agreements relating to goods specified in the First Schedule. However, thus
Schedule may be amended by the Minister concerned from time to time.
Answer :
In Malaysia the governing law that addresses partnership matters is provided in
the Partnership Act 1961 (Act 135). With regards to the extent of liabilities to be borne
by an incoming partner it is best to refer to the judgment made by Suriyadi J (as he then
was) in Leong Sing (sue as a firm) v. Perusahaan Kuari (Melaka Pindah) Sdn.Bhd
(formerly known as Malacca LianHwaSdn.Bhd [1997] 5 MLJ 657. In this case the court
referred to sections 11 and section 19(1) of the Partnership Act 1961.
ii.
REFERENCES
Mulcahy, Linda and Tillotson, John. (2004). Contract Law in Perspective, London:
Cavendish Publishing.
OSullivan, Janet and Hilliard, Jonathan. (2006). The Law of Contract, New York: Oxford
University Press.
http://www.lawteacher.net/consideration-law/essays/consideration-in-contractformation.php#ixzz2FwUMjQRw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hire/purchase