Maju Jaya Supermarket ( MJ Supermarket ) advertises in the newspapers that there is a vacancy for the station of director. The advertizement stated that
those who are interested can come anytime to MJ Supermarket for an interview from 11th April 2014 until 21st April 2014. Ahmad who was really interested with the station came to MJ Supermarket on 20th April 2014 and was informed by the proprietor that the station was already filled. Ahmad was really angry as he has already tendered his surrender to his former company. On the twenty-four hours that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket. he saw Mr Chan. his neighbor. come ining the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned nutrient. shampoo. eggs and veggies. He put all the points into his streetcar. However. while he was still looking for other points. Mr Chan received a call from his boy inquiring him to pick him up from the train station. Mr Chan left the points in the streetcar and went out from the MJ Supermarket. Advise Ahmad and Mr Chan whether there is any contract between them and the MJ Supermarket. ( 20 MARKS )
ANSWER to Separate A ( Ahmad Case )
The definition given under the Section 2 ( H ) of the Contracts Act 1950 is that a contract is an understanding enforceable by jurisprudence ( The Commissioner of Law Revision. 2006 ) . Therefore in the Ahmad’s instance. one of the parties ( Ahamd or MJ Supermarket ) has to do an offer that is punctually accepted by the other.
First issue that we need address in this instance is to see whether the advertizement saying the interview deadlines contains an offer. If it does. can Ahmad’s willingness to go to the interview be considered as an credence of the offer? In instance the advertizement is non considered as an offer. or if it is merely an invitation to handle. so there is no contract between them. Second issue raised by the inquiry is whether Ahmad’s presence in the MJ Supermarket to go to the interview on clip. after his surrender from his old occupation. is an offer. In that instance. does MJ Supermarket can reject Ahmad’s offer? Based on the limited information given in the Ahmad’s instance. the issues were analysed to see whether there is a contract between both parties?
Harmonizing to Section 2 ( a ) of the Contracts Act 1950. an offer exists “when one individual signifies to another his willingness to make or to abstain from making anything. with a position to obtaining the acquiescence of that other to the act or abstention. he is said to do a proposal” ( Rahman. 2011 ) . As given in the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd ( 1893 ) 1 QB 256 instance. a proposal or an offer can besides be made to the general populace to be accepted by any individual who knows about it and willing to execute the demands of the suggester. On the other manus. an invitation to handle can be defined as giving information or petitions to others to do offers.
Application of the Law to the Facts of the Problem
The advertizement by the MJ Supermarket clearly states that those who are interested can come anytime to MJ Supermarket for an interview from 11th April 2014 until 21st April 2014. This raise the inquiry whether the advertizement is intended to jump in contract with the participants who come for the interview. In instance of COELHO v. THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION [ 1964 ] M. L. J. 12. the applier. a Health Inspector under the Town Board. Tanjong Malim. applied for the station of Assistant Passport Officer in the Federation of Malaya Government Oversea Missions advertised in the Malay Mail dated 19 February 1957. Consequently. the applier was informed that he was accepted and. after undergoing preparation. he was posted to the Immigration Office. Kuala Lumpur. where he remained until December 1958 when he was transferred to the Immigration Office at Johor Bahru ( Rahman. 2011 ) .
The High Court ruled that the newspaper advertizement was an invitation for qualified individuals to use and the applications were treated as offers. Lapp can be expressed to the instance of Ahmad that the newspaper advertizement by the MJ Supermarket is an invitation to those who are interested to take part in the interview. In the instance of Gibson v Manchester CC [ 1979 ] 1 All ER 972. HL local council write to renters ask foring them to use to buy their places. One such tenant P did use. and a monetary value was agreed. Following a alteration of party control. the new council DD refused to travel in front with the sale. The House of Lords said there was no binding contract: Phosphorus had made an offer which DD had non yet accepted. Phrases in the correspondence such as “may be prepared to sell” and “please complete the enclosed application form” were declarative of an invitation to handle ( Thomson Reuters. 2004 ) . Similarly to this instance. the advertizement by the MJ supermarket stated that those who are interested “can come” any clip to the interview is important to see that the advertizement was a measure in the dialogue for a contract.
Sing the tribunal opinion on both Coelho’s instance and Gibson’s instance. the advertizement made in the newspaper was an “invitation to treat” . However. the presence of Ahmad to take part in the interview is considered as an offer. The MJ Supermarket rejected this offer. Therefore the advice to Ahmad is that there is no contract between himself and the MJ Supermarket.
ANSWER to Separate B ( Ahmad Case )
On the twenty-four hours that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket. he saw Mr Chan. his neighbor. come ining the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned nutrient. shampoo. eggs and veggies. He put all the points into his streetcar. However. while he was still looking for other points. Mr Chan received a call from his boy inquiring him to pick him up from the train station. Mr Chan left the points in the streetcar and went out from the MJ Supermarket.
The definition given under the Section 2 ( H ) of the Contracts Act 1950 is that a contract is an understanding enforceable by jurisprudence ( The Commissioner of Law Revision. 2006 ) . In the instance of Chan. there should be an offer made by Chan and this offer should be accepted by the MJ Supermarket to do a contract.
The issue raised in the inquiry is whether the Mr Chan’s action of taking goods from ace market racks and set it into the basket contains an offer or an credence of an offer. Does he or MJ Supermarket fulfil the demands of a contract?
Harmonizing to Section 2 ( a ) of the Contracts Act 1950. an offer exists “when one individual signifies to another his willingness to make or to abstain from making anything. with a position to obtaining the acquiescence of that other to the act or abstention. he is said to do a proposal” . An invitation to handle can be defined as giving information or petitions to others to do offers. In the Contracts Act 1950. Section 4 ( 1 ) provinces that the “communication of a proposal is complete when the proposal comes to the cognition of the individual to whom it is made. To carry through the pre-conditions of a contract. the proposal should be clearly communicated to the acceptor. Under Section 5 ( 1 ) of the Contracts Act 1950. “a proposal may be revoked at any clip before the communicating of its credence is complete as against the suggester. but non afterwards.
Application of the Law to the Facts of the Problem
Mr Chan took goods by himself suggests that there is a show of goods in the MJ Supermarket and allows clients to voluntarily pick goods they like and purchase from the counter. “In the instance of Fisher V Bell [ 1960 ] 3 All ER 731. DC it was a statutory offense under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 to offer for sale any of assorted points. including flick-knives. A Bristol tradesman R displayed such a knife in his window. with a ticket reading “Ejector knife – 4s. ” [ 4 shillings = 20p ] . and was prosecuted for an offense under the Act. The Divisional Court took a actual reading of the legislative act and said he had committed no offense: the show was an invitation to handle. non an offer to sell” ( Rahman. 2011 ) . In relation to the Mr Chan’s scenario. this instance can be used to warrant an statement of altering head at any point of purchase before a contract is made. Therefore Mr Chan’s determination to go forth the goods without purchasing is acceptable based on Fisher’s instance.
“In the instance of Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [ 1953 ] 1 All ER 482. CA certain merchandises that were to be sold merely under the supervising of a registered druggist were displayed on shelves in a self-service store. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ( who are responsible for implementing this statute law ) brought a prosecution against the store for leting clients to purchase these merchandises by assisting themselves. but the Court of Appeal ( continuing Lord Goddard CJ ) said they had no instance. The client holding selected the goods made an offer to buy when he took them to the hard currency desk. and there was a registered druggist oversing that point at which the sale took place” ( Rahman. 2011 ) . Mr Chan does non take the goods to the gross revenues counter. In the instance it is besides mentioned that he was still looking for goods to purchase. However. he revoked from the procedure of doing an offer to the gross revenues staff when he got a phone call. As mentioned in the Boots instance. the action by Mr Chan indicates that he did non decently finish an offer to buy. In other words. he was involved in an invitation to handle from the MJ Supermarket.
To finish a contract between Mr Chan and MJ Supermarket. there is should clear communicating of an offer and credence between both parties. Based on the discussed instances above. the show of goods are considered as an invitation to handle. Mr Chan does non finish an offer to buy the goods as he discontinue his procedure of buying in the center before taking goods to the gross revenues counter. Futhermore. the MJ Supermarket does non hold cognition of a possible offer from Mr Chan.