LAW OF CONTRACT

PART 02
 The court held that:

➢ the advertisement was an invitation to treat.

➢ But
➢ The application made by the applicant was
considered as an offer.
➢ And the appointment of the applicant was considered
as an acceptance
➢ Thus, there was a valid contract of employment.
➢ The termination of the applicant on probation is
illegal.(unconditional offer)
 However,

Coelho v The Public Services Commission

[ 1964] MLJ 12
The R advertised in the Malay Mail inviting
applications for the post of an assistant Passport
Officer. {ITT}
The applicant made an application { offer} and was
subsequently accepted for permanent post {
acceptance} and letter of appointment is given
based on the unconditional condition.
.
 B. Display of Goods
• Self service shop/ shop window display
• Do not constitute a proposal to sell=ITT
• The proposal /OFFER:

• when the customer selects the desired

goods for payments at the counter..
• Offer comes from the customer, not from
the shop/supermarket
 B. Display of Goods
When the offer is made by the customer

• It is entirely up to the cashier at the counter

to make acceptance (scan the goods) or to
refuse the offer.
 Fisher v Bell
• The D displayed a flick knife in the window of
his shop.
• Under the Restrictive Weapon Act, it was
illegal to manufacture, sell, hire or offer for
sale or hire or lend to any other person any
flick knife.
• Because of that display act, the D then was
charged for contravened the Act by offering
the flick knife for sale.
• The D submitted that this was not sufficient
to constitute an offer.
 Fisher v Bell

• The court held that

• displaying the knife was merely an ITT,

not an offer
• thus no liability arose.
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots Cash Chemist.
• The D displayed a poison drugs on the
shelves of self service system. Customers
selected their purchases from the shelves,
put them into basket and took them to the
cashier desk.
• However, the selling of poison drugs by
using the above method is contravened the
law.
• The D then was charged for offering to sell
poison drug without pharmacist
supervision. (S.18(1) of the Pharmacy &
Poison Act 1933.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots Cash Chemist.

• Argument was made.

Issue: whether Contract is complete at the
moment customer took an article from the
shelves and put in the basket?
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots Cash Chemist.

• COA laid down the principle:

• Sale /contract complete at the cashier desk

(when the payment has been made/the
cashier scan )
not only by putting the things in the basket {
OFFER}
Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots Cash Chemist.
• COA laid down the principle:

The cashier has the right to accept/ reject.

• Thus, The display of goods=ITT
• The shop owner HAD NOT MADE an
unlawful sale.
(Payment was to be made at the exit where a
cashier was stationed and in every case
involving drugs, a pharmacist supervised
the transaction and was authorised to
prevent a sale).
Continue to
Part 03