L) In November 2012, Kei called Rio to hire him to replicate for him Cloud Strife’s weapon, the

Buster Sword, to be completed in March 2013. The price Rio quoted was RM 800 but Kei asked
for RM600. Rio agreed, but at the time, a plane flew by nearby and Kei could not hear Rio’s
answer. The line was then cut off and Kei did not call back. In March, Rio turned up at Kei’s
house with the sword. Kei accepts it, and give RM 600 but Rio refuses it, saying that the cost is
RM800. Discuss whether there is a contract between them and of their rights and liabilities, if
any.

-instatenous communication

-common law/acceptance must be notify to the p.

-malaysian law has a postal rule, it doesn’t apply to instatenous communication according to
s.4(2)a,b

-if the offeror

There is no contract formed between them because According to s7(a) of the contracts act 1950,
in order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.In
this issue, acceptance is not absolute because of the counter-offer that was made by the
offeree.This is because the original price was RM800 was then made an offer of his own to buy
for RM 600. The offeree has said to be made counter-offer. By giving RM 600 to Rio, he
rejected and saying that the cost is RM800 to Kie. From here, it is clearly shown that there exists
no valid binding contract between the parties for the purchase of weapon. This issue can be
related to the case of Hyde v Wrench where the plaintiff did not absolutely and unconditionally
accept the defendant’s offer price of 1000 pound. By proposing a different figure of 950 pound,
the plaintiff had rejected the defendant’s offer and now makes a new offer which is a counter-
offer.This counter-offer destroys the original offer. So as to be referred to the issue of Kei and
Rio, there is no acceptance because a counter-offer made by the offeree is also generally amounts
to a rejection of the original offer, which therefore cannot subsequently be accepted.

-s.2(b)

-broden case- there was a contract formed

-s.4(2)

-kie should be bound because he didn’t call back

O) a) Ahmad’s revocation letter arrives on 13 september

-Ahmad can revoke the offer letter because according to Section 5(1) of the contracts act 1950, a
proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as
against the proposer,but not afterwards. Thus the communication of revocation of a proposal is
complete as against the proposer who revokes when he has sent out the notice of his revocation.
In Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co case where the defendant posted a offer letter in
Cardiff on October 1, addressed to the plaintiffs in New York.It should be noted that it takes 10
to 11 days for a letter posted at either place to reach the other. On October 8, the defendants
posted a letter revoking the offer. This can be related to this issue because Ahmad sent his offer
letter to Sarah on 10 September and Sarah receives this on 13 September. Ahmad then sends a
revocation letter on 11 September where Ahmad’s proposer can be revoked when he has sent out
the notice of his revocation. Hence the revocation of offer is said to be valid before the
acceptance of offeree, therefore there is no contract formed between them.

-s4(3)

-example of case :dikinson v doss – knowledge that the land is sold

-
b) In this issue, there is no contract formed between Sarah and Ahmad as according to s.4(2)(a)
of the contracts act 1950 the communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor
when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.Thus an acceptance may be revoked at any time
before or at the moment the letter communicating the acceptance reaches the proposer , but not
afterwards. In this issue, the revocation letter made by Ahmad is still valid because the
revocation letter is sent at the moment the letter communicating the acceptance reaches the
proposer.

-no valid revocation occurs

-s.5(1)*

Ex of case: Ignatius v bell

c) There is still no binding contract formed between Ahmad and Sarah

-4.3(b)

-s.5(2)

M) In this case of Wei Liang and Susie, if an offeror who by the terms of his offer insists on
acceptance in a particular manner, he is entitled to insist that he is not bound unless acceptance is
effected or communicated in that precise way, although if the other party communicates his
acceptance in some other way, the offeror may be conduct. This matter shows that Wei Liang
had entered into a contract with Susie to sell the timber growing on his land which means both of
them are binding to contract.

-s.6(c)

-aboefoyle plantations v kaw – must get license otherwise terminated

-expressly and impliedly

-ng sue wah – contract must get approval from foreign.i.c….there is still a contract,