TUTORIAL ON LAW OF CONTRACT - HOW TO ANSWER “PROBLEM BASED QUESTION”

QUESTION:
Semek has lost her Persian cat, Che’Ta. She advertised in a newspaper, Utusan
Borneo, a reward of RM8000 to anyone who found and returned Che’ Ta to her.
Bonnita, Semek’s neighbor who was cleaning her backyard found a Persian cat up on
her durian tree. She knew that the cat belonged to Semek, so she returned it to her.
Bonnita only knew of the promised reward the next day after reading the advertisement
in Utusan Borneo.

Bonnita come to your office to solve this problem. You, as her lawyer, please advise
her.

ANSWER:FORMULA (I+L+A+C)
(1) I= ISSUES
Issue in this case is whether the communication of proposal is complete
between Semek and Bonnita? And whether Bonnita has right to claim the reward
of RM8000 from Semek?

I = INTRODUCTION
Offer is a statement or other indication made by the individual which
prepared to enter into a contract with another on certain terms.it is provided
under section 2(a) of CA 1950: ‘when one person signifies to another his
willingness to do or abstain from doing anything…he is said to make a proposal’.

(2) L = LAW + ILLUSTRATION + CASES

Unless there is communication of the proposal as suggested in Section 2(a)
of CA 1950, ‘when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain
from doing anything…’ there can be no acceptance to form an agreement.
The communication of offer is complete only when the offer comes to the
knowledge of the offeree- Section 4(1) of CA 1950.
If the offer has not been communicated to the offeree, there is no
acceptance could be made to form a binding contract.

PREPARED BY: IKHWAN NAGUIB BIN JUSOH | FACULTY OF LAW | UITM MUKAH 2020/2021
TUTORIAL ON LAW OF CONTRACT - HOW TO ANSWER “PROBLEM BASED QUESTION”

Illustration: A party who casually returns a lost property to its owner cannot
legally claim a reward if he is unaware of it at the time but subsequently
discovers the existence of an offer of reward for its return.
In the case of R v Clarke [1927], the Australian Government offered a
reward for the information leading to the arrest n conviction of the criminal. One
of the criminal, Clarke gave info which leads to the arrest of Y. Clarke was later
acquitted n claimed for the reward. The Court held that he was not entitled for the
reward because he was not aware of the reward when he gave the information to
the government.

(3) A = APPLICATION
By applying section 4 (1) of the CA 1950 and the case of R v Clarks,
Bonnita has no right to claim the reward of RM8000 from Semek.
This is because at the time she returned Che’ Ta to Semek, she was not
aware of the advertisement of reward in Utusan Borneo.
In other words, the communication of proposal/ offer was not complete by
virtue of section 4(1) of CA 1950.

(4) C = CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, my advice to Bonnita is, she cannot claim for the reward
of RM8000 as the communication of proposal was incomplete by virtue of section
4 (1) of CA 1950 as she was not aware of the advertisement of reward in Utusan
Borneo.

PREPARED BY: IKHWAN NAGUIB BIN JUSOH | FACULTY OF LAW | UITM MUKAH 2020/2021