OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE

P)

a. -contract between britcney v timberlake

- got contract because already binding( case : FRIAN V CODE)s.5 – can only revoke before acceptance
is posted because of section 14

-Invitation to treat

b. - is the contract between Britney v jastin – similar case taken which was- FELTHOUSE CASE

- No contract between both of them because silence is not acceptance, if yes it could be counter-
offer,highest or first come first serve

c. is there contract between Britney v cristtine – throught telephone and clear and able to hear each
other, BAGAVANDAS CASE is taken in this issue

Contract is established and therefore there is a contract in this issue ,

advertisement is an invitation to treat*

If advertisement is an offer?

1. Timberlake – acceptance (RM300) CONTRACT WHEN posted his letter of acceptance on 6th
March, then got contract
2. Justin –counter-offer in the case of Hyde v wrench, offer a lower price (RM180), therefore no
contract and destroy the original offer
3. Christen – got contract, she accepted with RM 220

2 Contract – valid at contract is with timberlake (can be revoked her letter of acceptance by it reach
timberlake)

- Contract is with christen(9/3) can accept christin’s offer if she revoked her acceptance to
timberlake

Cristina – if advertisement is an offer –

In the present case, Brittney has posted an advertisement in the newspaper about ‘limited
edition’ of ‘lerut of king……..further for RM200 each and negotiable but the reply must be
made before 10 March 2012. The advertisement made by Brittney was an invitation to treat
as she induced offer from the world to buy her rigurines and she was spented to any further
negotiation of price. The advertisement in malay mail is mainly for those who are intended
and interested to buy to make an offer to buy.
a) Is there a valid contract between Brittney and Timberlake? In the section 2(a) of contracts
act 1950, it defines offer as a person who indicates his willingness to do restrainhimself from
doing anything with the view to obtain an assent from another.(calill v carbolic smoke ball).
In the present case it appeared from the fact that Timberlake has offered to buy the
rigurines at RM300 each and it was subsequently accepted by Brittney. However,
Timberlake’s letter of revocation was invalid as Brittney posted the letter of acceptance
before receiving his letter of revocation which means there was a valid contract existed
between Brittney and Timberlake once Brittney posted her letter of acceptance to
Timberlake. In section 5(1), AN offer can be revoked anytime before communication of
acceptance is completed as against the proposer (Timberlake) but not afterward and in
s.4(2)(a) said that the communication of acceptance is complete against proposer
(Timberlake) once the letter was put in the course of transmission (means letter of
acceptance sent out by Brittney). In the case of Bryne v Leon, the letter of revocation is
invalid because acceptance has made before receiving the letter of revocation. Hence, there
is a contract that exist between Brittney and Timberlake as the letter of revocation by
Timberlake is invalid because it was Brittney after she has posted the letter of acceptance
to Timberlake.

b) Is there any valid contract between Justin and Brittney ?

In the present case, Justin has made an offer to buy Brittney’s figurines by telephoning her
and let a voice message to her. Justin also insisted that if Brittney did not reply on that day,
he shall considered her silence as acceptance. However, Brittney received the offer by Justin
the following day after sending letter of acceptance to Timberlake. Section 2(a) of contracts
act 1950 it defines offer as a person who signifies his willingness to do or retrain himself
from doing by obtain the assent of another, he is said to be making a proposal. In the
present case, Justin has made a proposal to Brittney but the silence by Brittney did not
constituted as an acceptance as silence is not an acceptance because Brittney’s intention to
sell her figuries was not communicated and silence did not amount to an acceptance ( this
can be clearly seen in the case of Felthouse v Brindley) where the intention to sell also not
communicated and the court held that silence does not amount to acceptance and no valid
contract between both parties. In this present case, Brittney did not have the opportunity to
reject Justin’s offer as she received his offer on the following day after sending the letter of
acceptance to Timberlake. Hence there is no valid contract between Brittney and Justin as
silence did not amount to acceptance.

c) Is there a valid contract between Christin and Brittney ?

In the present case, Christin has made an offer to buy Brittney’s figurine before 10 March
2012. Section2(a)of the contracts act 1950 defines offer as a person who signifies his
willingness to do or abstrain from doing anything with view to obtain assent from another
party, he is said to make a proposal. The letter of revocation from Timberlake received by
Brittney did not constitute a valid revocation as Brittney has posted her letter of acceptance
which binds Timberlake once it was posted and a contract was formed between both of
them. Hence there is no contract between Christina and Brittney as there I a valid contract
existed between Brittney and Timberlake.