2.

0 DISCUSSION

In the event that Anis files a lawsuit against Zulhafiq for breach of contract since, in her
judgement, a contract had been created when he failed to remove the giant kapok tree with its
open white 'kekabu' fruit towering above the unused well behind one of the pergolas, even
though Anis had thought that they already made the contract but Zulhafiq already sell the
house to Shamalah on 7th May 2023. Therein, in order for Anis (Plaintiff) to successfully sue
Zulhafiq (Defendant). Through the assistance of her attorney, she must convince the judge
that Anis and Zulhafiq may have entered into a contract (Contract of Sale). A contract is
defined as "an agreement that can be enforced by law" under Section 2 Subsection (h) of the
Contract Act of 1950. If this contract or promise is legally enforceable, only then may the
court hear the argument and provide a decision.
The agreement or commitment is considered to constitute a contract in the scheme of the
law if this purpose is present. The parties enter into a contract when they acquire or sell
items. A legitimate agreement that is not unlawful will also be deemed to constitute a
contract. Therefore, if any of the other conditions is not satisfied, there may still be an
agreement but not a legally binding agreement. components of a legal contract Offer,
acceptance, consideration, intention to establish a legal relationship, the objective of the
contract should be lawful and enforceable by law, clarity, capacity, and formalities are some
requirements for a contract to be deemed valid. A contract must be legally binding in order to
truly generate an obligation.

2.1 OFFER

First element in contract law need to be seen before whether she could effectively sue
Zulhafiq for breach of contract. First element is an offer. In a contract, there must be a
good, valid binding offer at law. In the question given, the offer is in the form of oral offer,
Zulhafiq making an offer by saying “Would you like this house for RM350,000.00?” to Anis.
Offer made on May 2023, May 5th. Section 2 Subsection (a) of the Malaysian Contract Act
1950 defines a one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from
doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence,
he is said to make a proposal. This shows a there is a good valid binding offer at law.
However, Anis also make an acceptance by oral at the same time by saying “Yes but let
me think about it and come back to you in three days’ time!”. On May 7, 2023, Anis and
a buddy entered Zulhafiq's land by climbing over the picket fence that surrounded it to
see the housing creation. But behind one of the pergolas, she and her buddy discovered a
massive kapok tree with its eerie opening white 'kekabu' pods. They hold that due to
Malay mythology and superstitions, we cannot keep a kapok tree in our yard for fear that
later, unfavourable things may occur.

After visiting the Zulhafiq property on the same date, May 7, 2023, Anis phoned
Zulhafiq right away and requested to buy the home without the tree and instructed him to
"do whatever and in whatever ways you can but the tree must go!". Zulhafiq has not
responded on that circumstance but he says that he property already sell to Shamalah.
Anis want to sue Zulhafiq to breach the contract, but based on the offer element, at first
Zulhafiq supposedly made an offer. But according to Section 7 (a) of the Contract Act
1950 stated "Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified". So, if Zulhafiq wants to sell
his house to Anis at RM350,000.00. Anis cannot add other conditions to Zulhafiq's offer.
Anis should make absolute acceptance to buy the house. When Zulhafiq says he wants to
sell the house, Anis actually needs to make a firm offer that absolute and unqualified
following with Section 7 (a) Contract Act 1950.

But the situation that happened, Anis already add extra terms in acceptance by
saying on May 2023, May 5th “Yes but let me think about it and come back to you in three
days’ time!” and on May 7, 2023 "do whatever and in whatever ways you can but the tree
must go!" so she agree to buy the house. In accordance with Malaysian law, Anis'
addition of the term to the contract violates Section 7 Subsection (a) of the Contract Act
1950. Additionally, a counteroffer can invalidate a first offer, as was the case in the
President's "Hyde VS Wrench" case. Based on the actual circumstances, Anis was no
longer an offerie when she discussed the additional parameters because she had already
made a counter offer. So, in this case, the real offeror is Anis not Zulhafiq. Zulhafiq is the
offerie before and supposedly Anis become the offerie but because she already added the
terms to her acceptance, according to leading cases under common law so she has
effectively canceled Zulhafiq status as an offeror and also canceled the offer made by
Zulhafiq at first. Now, she is offeror not offerie status. Anis (Offeror) makes Zulhafiq
 (Offerie) the following offer: "She would like to buy the house at RM350.000 in 3 days if
the enormous kapok tree with its unsettling opening white 'kekabu' pods has been settled
by Zulhafiq.".

Once the new offer (Counter Offer) has been made by Anis, Zulhafiq need to give
an acceptance or no acceptance to the counter offer made by Anis. If assumption that
Zulhafiq give the acceptance, then on condition that all the other 5 elements has been
satisfied so there is good valid binding contract at law between Anis and Zulhafiq. So,
both of them cannot breach the contract. The final judgment for the first elements
contract is offer between Anis VS Zuhafiq. The offer is counter offer, counter offer is
cannot be a good valid binding offer at law if there is no good valid binding acceptance at
law. The counter offer also will terminated the original offer made. Based on these cases,
Anis will lose because the offer is herself and not Zulhafiq. Based on Section 2 sub
section h “valid contract is an enforceable contract at law” and Section 2 sub section g
“avoid contract is cannot enforce at law.” There is no good valid binding contract at law
if the offer and acceptance has not been made and acceptance. Anis might lose the case to
Zulhafiq because of the counter offer that she made before.

2.2 ACCEPTANCE

Just like the first element, in contract law it needs to be seen before whether she
(Anis) can effectively sue Zulhafiq for breach of contract. The second element is acceptance. An
acceptance is someone who accepts an offer and is called an offerie. In a contract, there must be
a good and legally binding acceptance. In the question given, an offer in the form of a verbal
offer, Zulhafiq made an offer by saying "Do you want this house for the price of
RM350,000.00?" to Anis. Offer made on May 2023, May 5. However, Anis also make an
acceptance by oral at the same time by saying “Yes but let me think about it and come back to
you in three days’ time!”. Section 2(b) defines acceptance as "a statement of consent by the party
to whom the proposal is addressed." This implies that acceptance is a positive reaction to the
offer made to the recipient. The acceptance of the contract renders it effective and enforceable.
Once accepted, both parties are bound by a legal contract.

After visiting the Zulhafiq property on May 7, 2023, Anis phoned Zulhafiq right
away and requested to buy the home without the tree and instructed him to "do whatever
and in whatever ways you can but the tree must go!". It is because on that day Anis and a
buddy entered Zulhafiq's land by climbing over the picket fence that surrounded it to see
the housing creation. However, she and her friend discovered a giant kapok tree with
creepy opening white 'kekabu' pods under one of the pergolas. They believe that because
of Malay folklore and superstitions, we cannot have a kapok tree in our garden for fear of
bad things happening later. Zulhafiq has not responded on that circumstance.

In the beginning, the first situation can get a good offer with a good acceptance.
However, due to the counter offer, the contract was cancelled. When the contract was
cancelled, Anis was no longer an offerie when she addressed the additional restrictions
because she had already made a counter offer. In this scenario, Anis is the true offeror,
not Zulhafiq. Zulhafiq was the offerie before Anis became the offerie, but because she
already appended the stipulations to her acceptance, according to leading instances under
common law, she effectively cancelled Zulhafiq's status as an offeror and also cancelled
Zulhafiq's first offer. Now, she is offeror not offerie status. Anis (Offeror) makes
Zulhafiq (Offerie) the following offer: "She would like to buy the house at RM350.000 in
3 days if the enormous kapok tree with its unsettling opening white 'kekabu' pods has
been settled by Zulhafiq."

Anis's new offer (Counter Offer) must be accepted or rejected by Zulhafiq once it
is made. However, Zulhafiq remained silent and ignored the counter offer made by Anis
This is because, according to Felthouse v Bindley [1862], silence does not constitute
acceptance. However, if accompanied by behaviour, silence can be considered
acceptance. This is a type of implied acceptance collected by observing the complete
course of the parties. Based on section 4 Communication, acceptance and revocation of
proposals defines the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals and the
revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively are deemed to be made by any act
or omission of the party proposing. This is shows the are the silence is not a form of
acceptance. Silence is uncertain, unclear and no communication making so there is no
valid binding possible contract at law all between both parties. There is no good
legitimate binding contract in law until an offer and acceptance are made and accepted.
Anis may lose the case to Zulhafiq as a result of her previous counter-offer.