TUTORIAL QUESTION

De Slim Company (DSC) had successfully invented a new product to reduce body weight known as
Natural Loss. They had advertised this product in a newspaper. The advertisement stated that Natural
Loss can help to reduce weight up to 20 kg after one (1) month. It cost about RM500.00 and this amount
will be refunded if the weight is still maintaining after using it. To show their sincerity, DSC highlighted in
their advertisement that RM1000 had been deposited to CAMB Bank as a preparation to satisfy any
claims from customers.

Miss Fatty who had obesity problem read the advertisement. She was excited to buy this product since
she had only one (1) month to get married with her Mr Right. Thus, she was really looking forward to
reduce her weight in order to fit her wedding gown. She then bought the product. Unfortunately, after
using this product according to its printed instruction for a month, her condition worsens and she
became fatter. Her Mr Right left her and cancelled their wedding. Miss Fatty was very frustrated and
decided to get the refund from DSC. She claimed the RM100 as promised in the advertisement.
However, DSC denied liability.

Due to the cancellation of her wedding ceremony, Mr Fatty was very frustrated and she would like to get
rid of all her memories with Mr Right. She decided to sell her wedding gown to her friend, Miss Slimmy
for RM50. Miss Slimmy agreed with the price but after two days, she called Miss Fatty and told that she
agreed to buy for RM45 only and not RM50. Miss Fatty refused and sold the gown to her friend, Miss
Softy. Miss Slimmy was very sad and blamed that Miss Fatty had breached the contract. She wanted to
sue Miss Fatty in court.
Advise Miss Fatty.

Answer Scheme (TUTORIAL ONE)

QUESTION ONE

ISSUES

1.Can Miss Faty claim RM100 from DSC? /Can DSC deny liability?

2.Can Miss Slimmy sue Miss Fatty for the gown?

SOLUTION: (prepare solution for the issues)

ISSUE 1 – MF VS DSC

The issue is about an advertisement.

Gen. Principle in: Coelho v. PSC – Advertisement is an ITT, not an offer.

Exception: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Facts & Decision)– advertisement in this case was held as
an offer.

Application: (answer the issue & give reasons/justification)

Based on Carlill’s case, offer can be made to the world at large. DSC had made an offer, which can be
accepted by anybody who fulfilled the conditions/instructions stipulated in the advertisement.
Acceptance need not be communicated to the offeror (DSC). Deposit of RM1000 by DSC indicated their
intention to be binding by their promise. Miss Fatty can sue DSC.

ISSUE 2

The issue is acceptance & counter offer

S 7(a): Acceptance must be absolute & unconditional.

Hyde v. Wrench (Facts & Decision)

Application: Based on the case law & sections mentioned above, acceptance by Miss Slimmy is not
absolute & it was a counter-offer, which invalidated the original offer. No contract. Miss Slimmy cannot
claim the gown.