1

Question 1(a)

State section 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950.

Nyatakan seksyen 2(h) Akta Kontrak 1950. (5 Marks)

Answer:

“An agreement that is enforceable at law is a contract.” (5 Marks)

(Total Marks: 5 Marks)

Question 1(b)

Describe the meaning of a voidable contract defined in section 2(i) of the Contracts Act 1950.
Terangkan maksud kontrak boleh batal yang didefinasikan di dalam seksyen 2(i) Akta
Kontrak 1950. (8 Marks)

Answer:

A voidable contract is a valid contract until it is revoked or cancelled by the aggrieved party.
(2 Marks)
If the aggrieved party does not revoke or cancel the contract, that contract is valid and
enforceable at law. (2 Marks)
A contract is voidable if one or more of the elements that elements that makes a contract
voidable is present that is:
- Coercion (1 Mark)
- Undue Influence (1 Mark)
- Fraud (1 Mark)
- Misrepresentation (1 Mark)

(Total Marks: 8 Marks)

 2

Question 1(c)

On 1.12.2016, Mariah offered to sell her porcelain doll to Lisa at RM200.00. Six days later,
on 7.12.2015 Lisa rang Mariah and told her she wanted to buy the doll at RM150.00. Mariah
refused to sell the doll. On 10.12.2016, again Lisa rang Mariah and told her she now wanted
to buy the doll at RM200.00 but Mary told her she did not want to sell the doll anymore to
anyone. Angry, Lisa wanted to sue Mariah in court for breach of contract.

Advice Lisa if she could sue Mariah successfully in court based on the leading English case
of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 E.R. 132.

Pada 1.12.2016, Mariah menawarkan untuk menjual anak patung porcelainnya kepada Lisa
pada harga RM200.00. Enam hari kemudian, pada on 7.12.2016 Lisa telah menalifon
Mariah dan memberitahu beliau mahu membeli anak patung tersebut pada harga RM150.00.
Bagaimanapun, Mary tidak mahu menjual anak patung tersebut. Pada 10.1.2016, Lisa
sekali lagi menalifon Mariah dan memberitahu bahawa sekarang beliau mahu membeli anak
patung itu pada harga RM200.00 tetapi Mary menjawab dia tidak lagi mahu menjual anak
patung tersebut kepada sesiapa pun. Marah, Lisa mahu menyaman Mariah di Mahkamah di
atas kesalahan pecah kontrak.

Nasihatkan Lisa jika beliau dapat menyaman Mariah dengan jayanya berdasarkan kes
terutama Inggeris iaitu kes Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 E.R. 132.

(12 Marks)

Answer:

(Any of the answers below or any relevant answers that totals 12 Marks)

- Mariah is the offeror who makes the offer on 1.12.2016 (0.5 Mark)

- Lisa is the offeree who receives the offer (0.5 Mark)

- A valid acceptance must be made on the same terms and conditions found in the offer/

Acceptance must be absolute & unqualified (1 Mark)

-section 7 Contracts Act 1950 (1 Mark)

-- Lisa makes a counter offer on 5.12.2016 plus explanation (2 Mark)

-No valid acceptance made by Lisa on 5.12.2016 (1 Mark)

 3

-A counter offer destroys the original offer made on 5.12.2016 (1 Mark)

-On 5.12.2016, due to the counter offer Lisa becomes the offeror and Mariah becomes the
offeree (2 Marks)

-But Mariah didn’t make acceptance to sell at RM150.00 (1 Mark)

-No contract exists on 5.12.2016 (1 Mark)

-When on 10.12.2016 Lisa made another offer to buy at RM200.00 Lisa is still the offeror
and Mariah is the offeree (1 Mark)

- Mariah is free to make acceptance or no acceptance. But in this case she opted not to make
any acceptance to sell at RM200.00 anymore. (1 Mark)

-Hence there is no contract for Mariah to sell the porcelain doll for RM200.00 (1 Mark)

-Lisa cannot sue Mariah for breach of contract (1 Mark)

(Total: 12marks)

__________________________________________________________________________
 4

Question 2(a)

State section 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950.

Nyatakan seksyen 2(h) Akta Kontrak 1950. (5 Marks)

Answer:

“An agreement that is enforceable at law is a contract.” (5 Marks)

(Total Marks: 5 Marks)

Question 1(b)

Describe the meaning of “freedom to contract” described in section 14 of the Contracts Act
1950.

Terangkan maksud “kerelaan bebas” di dalam seksyen 14 Akta Kontrak 1950.

(8 Marks)

Answer:

A person is said to have ‘freedom to contract” if there are no elements that can make a
contract voidable under section 14 of the Contracts Act 1950. (1 Marks)

If there is one or more elements under section 14 of the Contracts Act 1950 is present; then
that contract is categorised as a voidable contract (1 Mark)

A voidable contract is a valid and enforceable contract until it is revoked or cancelled by the
aggrieved party to the contract (2 Marks)

A contract is voidable if one or more of the elements that elements that makes a contract
voidable is present that is:

- Coercion (1 Mark)

- Undue Influence (1 Mark)

- Fraud (1 Mark)
 5

- Misrepresentation (1 Mark)

(Total Marks: 8 Marks)

Question 2(c)

Mary’s Russian blue cat named Peter Pan went missing on 1.12.2016. Heartbroken, Mary
made a poster written “RM200.00 for the safe return of Peter Pan.” In that poster Mary
included a picture of her cat, her contact address together with her phone number and pasted
the poster on a coconut tree at her village. On 7.12.2016 Lisa read the poster on the way to
school and found the cat at the school canteen during her school break. She contacted Mary
after school but Mary refused to pay her RM200.00 because she says she had no money.
Mary gave Lisa only RM50.00 and took the cat away with her.

Advice Lisa based on the leading English case of Carlill v Carblic Smokeball Co. Ltd.
[1892] EWCA Civ 1.

Kucing Mary bernama Peter Pan hilang pada 1.12.2016. Kecewa, Mary telah membuat satu
poster bertulis “RM200.00 untuk kepulangan Peter Pan dengan selamat.” Mary juga telah
memasukkan gambar kucing, alamat serta nombor talifonnya dan menampalkan poster
tersebut pada satu batang pokok kelapa dikampungnya. Pada 7.12.2016 di dalam perjalan
pergi ke sekolah, Lisa telah membaca poster tersebut and telah menjumpai kucing itu di
kantin sekolahnya pada masa rehat. Beliau telah menghubungi Mary tetapi Mary enggan
membayar wang RM200.00 kerana katanya dia tidak mempunyai wang. Mary telah
mengambil kucingnya pergi bersamanya dan hanya memberi RM50.00 kepada Lisa.

Nasihatkan Lisa berdasarkan kes Inggeris yang terutama Carlill v Carblic Smokeball Co.
Ltd. [1892] EWCA Civ 1.

(12 Marks)
 6

Answer:

(Any of the answers below or any relevant answers that totals 12 Marks)

- The general rule for advertisement is an advertisement is just an invitation to a treat

(1Mark)

-inviting people who answers the advertisement to make the offers (1Mark)

- however this case is similar to the leading English case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Ltd (1 Mark)

- Facts of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd (1 Mark)

- Judgment of the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd that:

- this case is an exception to the general rule in that here advertisement is a good and
binding offer at law because: (1 mark)

- (i) the maker of the advertisement (Defendant) has asked the plaintiff to expend her
time and energy to follow the instructions to use the smoke balls three times a day for
2 weeks and the Plaintiff in following these instructions and getting influenza has
essentially provided a good and valid consideration to the advertisement. Thus it
would be unfair to treat the advertisement as an invitation to a treat for it would give
the Defendant the right not to make any acceptance to the Plaintiff’s offer to be paid
the £100 pounds sterling to her pain and suffering in following the instructions which
essentially are her consideration to this contract. Thus the advertisement by right
should be treated as an offer and anyone who answers the advertisement and follows
the instructions and at the same time still falling ill from influenza should be treated
as a good and valid acceptance by conduct. (3 Marks)

- (ii) the Defendant’s statement that ‘£1000 is deposited with the Alliance
Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter” shows that the Defendant
has intention to create legal relations with those who answers the advertisement; thus
in effect the argument by the Defendant that this advertisement was just ‘mere puff’
cannot be accepted by the court. This advertisement in effect is a good and valid offer
to the world at large. (3 Marks)

- Thus in this case the advertisement created by Mary is a good offer because Lisa has
expended her time and energy (in finding the cat and returning to Mary) as consideration for
the reward of RM200.00 which is an acceptance by conduct. There is a contract here to pay
RM200.00 to Lisa. (3 Marks)

- Lisa can sue Mary in court for breach of contract (1 Mark)

(Total: 12marks)