UNL1612 - Tutorial 2 (W3)

Question 1
Discuss the law on revocation of a proposal and acceptance. Support your answer with relevant
authorities.

Question 2
An advertisement on 7th July 2017 at The Moon Newspaper:
Motorcycle for Sale!
Honda EX 5
RM3,000
2016 model
Excellent Condition and Accident Free.
Contact: Joe (0199998887)

Alan called Joe on 8th July and informed him that he wants to buy Joe’s motorcycle. However, Alan
wants to inspect the motorcycle. Joe is a bit reluctant to allow Alan to inspect the motorcycle. Joe
informed Alan that he would call him for a date for the inspection.
On 9th July, Ben call Joe that he is interested in buying the motorcycle for RM2,800. Joe immediately
agreed to sell the motorcycle to Ben.
On 8th July at about 6.00 pm, Alan sent a voice message to Joe’s handphone informing Joe that he
decided to buy Joe’s motorcycle without inspection. However, Joe did not receive the voice message as
there is a problem with his phone line.
Advise Alan.
UNL1612 - Tutorial 2 (W3)

The first issue is whether Joe’s advertisement in an offer or an invitation to treat (ITT).
The relevant authorities are the legal concept of ITT, Partridge v Crittenden and Coelho v The
Public Services Commission.
The legal concept of an invitation to treat is a statement which is not intended to be binding at
law. An invitation to treat merely invites the parties to make an offer. It often appears in the form of
advertisements. Therefore, Joe’s advertisement is probably an invitation to treat which is not intended to
be legally binding as it merely invites people to make an offer. In Partridge v Crittenden, appellant
inserted in a magazine an advertisement which was inserted under the heading of “Classified
Advertisements” with no direct use of the words “offers for sale”. A man by the name of Mr. Thompson
answered the advertisement, sent a cheque to the appellant. The appellant appealed against his
conviction for unlawfully offering for sale of bird contrary to the legislation. The issue was whether the
advertisement was merely an invitation to treat or an offer for sale. The court allowed the appeal and
held that the advertisement was not an offer, but only an invitation to treat.
Thus, Joe’s advertisement at the Moon Newspaper was not an offer but merely an invitation to
treat which invites others to make an offer to buy his motorcycle.
In Coelho v The Public Services Commission, appellant applied for a job post advertised in the
Malay Mail Newspaper. The appellant was informed that he was accepted. Later, he was being
dismissed during probation period. Then, the appellant changed his dismissal at court. Ong J, in
discussing an issue related to contract law, held that the advertisement was an invitation to treat and the
resulting application were proposals from the applicant. Hence, since Joe’s advertisement is an
invitation to treat, Alan as an offeror of the one who made the offer, which Joe, the offeree, may or may
not accept.
In conclusion, it is more likely that Joe’s advertisement was merely an invitation to treat.
The second issue is whether Alan’s communication of offer is complete.
The relevant authorities are Section 2(a) of Contracts Act and Section 4(1).
S 2(a) of CA provides that when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain
from doing anything, with a view of obtaining the assent of that other to the act of abstinence, he is said
to make a proposal. S 4(1) of CA specifies that the communication of a proposal is complete when it
comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Based on the facts, Alan has made an offer in pursuant to S 2(a) of CA, where Alan signifies to
Joe his willingness to buy Joe’s motorcycle, with a view to obtain Joe’s consent to sell his motorcycle to
Alan.
Alan in pursuant to S 4(1) of CA communicated his offer to Joe via voice message. However,
Joe did not receive Alan’s communication of offer due to a problem with Joe’s phone line. Therefore,
Alan did not fulfill S 4(1) of CA as his communication of offer is incomplete. It did not come to
knowledge of the person to whom it is made, which in this case would be Joe as an offeree.
In conclusion, it is most likely that there is no valid offer from Alan to Joe due to incomplete
communication of offer.
UNL1612 - Tutorial 2 (W3)