You are on page 1of 2

Question one

There are two issues relating to Hussien which can be deduced from this question.
The first issue is that whether Hussien when selecting the groceries and placing it
in the trolley constitutes an acceptance to the offer of the contract of buying the
groceries by Tesco and whether Tesco had the right to take legal action against
Hussien
According to the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash
Chemists (Southern) Ltd, The Court held that the display of a product in a store with
a price attached is not sufficient to be considered an offer, but rather is an invitation
to treat. Hussien when taking the groceries did not accept a proposal to enter into
contract with Tesco because the displaying of goods itself does not constitute a
proposal under the judgement held by the judge in this case
Therefore according to this case, Tesco does not have the right to take legal action
against Hussien because the displaying of goods merely constitutes an invitation to
treat and not a proposal to enter into a contract.
The second issue is that Hussein realized that the letter of acceptance to buy a
computer to Ahmad that was posted earlier was not addressed properly. He also
decided that he did not want to purchase the computer after all. He quickly
telephoned Ahmad to tell him so. Ahmad confirmed that he had not received the
letter of acceptance. So is Hussein who had posted the letter of acceptance, bound
by it and had entered into a valid contract had to proceed with the purchase?
In the case of Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59, the judge held that there is no
contact when it is misdirected by post to the wrong address. Thus there is no
contract made between Hussien and Ahmad
Therefore Hussien is not bound to enter into the contract with Ahmad and pay him
for the computer.

Is this legal since Mary has not yet attained the age of Majority? According to S11. Therefore this constitutes a fraud and the contract becomes voidable. Mary told Amy that the built up area of the house was 2500 square feet knowing full well that it was only 2000 square feet.Question 2 The first issue is that Mary obtains a scholarship to MalaysiaBoleh University when she was 17 and is bound by contract to work for Selangor for 5 years.4 (a) of the Contract Act however. an agent had advertised some cattle as being “well suited for breeding purposes”. Later on it was discovered that the stock had been exposed to a contagious disease which affected the reproductive system. where the judge held that minors can enter into scholarship for the purpose of education. Thus the contract of scholarship entered by Mary is a valid contract and she is bound by virtue of the contract to work for Selangor for the stated period of time. Osman [1981] VR 57. a person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject. Does this constitute fraud and can the contract be void? In Lockhart v. Therefore Mary is bound by the contract of her scholarship even though she was a minor at that time. In this case Amy did not tell Mary that the land was lesser than what she stated earlier. and who is of sound mind. Pursuant to the sale and purchase agreement. persons not of the age of Majority entering into a scholarship contract are still bound to the precedents set in the contract agreed. This can be further seen in the case of the Govt of Malaysia v Gurcharan Singh . . S2 of the Age of Majority Act 1971 provides that all persons in Malaysia attain the age of majority at 18. The second issue is when Amy entered into a sale and purchase agreement to purchase Mary’s house. Before signing the sale and purchase agreement. Amy had gone to view Mary’s house. Amy paid RM10 000 as deposit but has since discovered the true built up area. It was held that the agent had a duty to take remedial action and correct the representation. and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. Under S.