(a) Tommy is very furious and comes to you for advice.

He wants to know whether there

is a valid contract between Samuel and him. Advise Tommy. (10 marks)
Tommy saw a post posted by Samuel about selling his vintage 1967 Ford Mustang on
a vintage car enthusiast group on Facebook and wanted to purchase the car. Tommy offered
Samuel Rm20000 to purchase the car which was priced at Rm30,000 car and in this case
Tommy which used to be an offeree becomes the offeror, an offeror is someone who offers a
proposal .
An offer is a conditional request made by a buyer or seller to acquire or sell an asset;
if accepted, the request becomes legally binding. Samuel is now an offeree, which is a person
who receives a proposal and has the option to accept it or reject it. This is in accordance with
Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act of 1950, which states that when a person declares a
readiness to do or refrain from doing anything in order to get another's permission to the act
of doing so, he is said to make a proposal.Tommy offered Rm20,000 for the automobile, but
Samuel said Rm30,000 is the lowest amount he will accept. Tommy then declined Samuel's
offer. Tommy then agrees to pay the Rm30,000 asking price for the automobile, but Samuel
doesn't respond. The offeree's answer to the offeror's revised terms of offer in this case cannot
be regarded as an acceptance.The counteroffer is open for acceptance or rejection by the
original offeror. Similar to Hyde V. Wrench [1840]49 ER 132, the defendant in this case, Mr.
Wrench, offered to sell the plaintiff, Mr. Hyde, the property that he possessed. Mr. Hyde
rejected his offer of £1,200 as the price for the house. The defendant made the decision to
submit a written response to the complaint along with a new offer to buy the farm, this time
for £1,000. He stated unequivocally that this was his last offer for the property. In his letter of
response, Mr. Hyde made an offer to buy the land for £950. Mr. Wrench notified the
complainant that he disagreed with it. Then Mr. Hyde consented to buy the farm for the
previously negotiated £1,000 price. Later, Mr. Hyde made the decision to accept the initial
offer of £1,000 for the farm. On the other side, Mr. Wrench strongly resisted selling his farm.
According to the verdict, the court rejected the claims because Mr. Hyde and Mr. Wrench did
not enter into a legally binding agreement about the land.According to what was said, when a
counteroffer is made, the initial offer is surpassed and nullified. Mr. Hyde retracted his initial
offer of £1,000 when he made the £950 offer, and he was unable to backtrack and agree.
Samuel is free to reject the offer since Tommy and Samuel do not have an enforceable
contract, analogous to the situation in Hyde v. Wrench [1840]49 ER 132.
(b) Amanda transfers RM40,000 to Samuel and asks for the car to deliver to her
immediately. Samuel later finds out his car is actually worth RM80,000 and wonders if
he needs to honour that promise. Advise Samuel whether there is a valid contract
between Amanda and him. (6 marks)
Amanda, which is an offeror offered to purchase Samuel’s car for Rm40,000 which is
Rm10,000 more that what Samuel is willing to sell the car for , Amanda stated that if she
don’t hear anything from Samuel’s side by tomorrow she would considered the deal as
accepted. Samuel did not reply her but marks the car as Sold. Samuel then found out that his
car is worth Rm80,000 and wanted to call off the deal. Like the case of Felthouse v Bindley
[1862] EWHC CP J35, wherein Paul Felthouse (Amanda in this case) negotiated the purchase
of his horse with his nephew, John Felthouse (Samuel in this instance). Following their talk,
the uncle responded by writing that if he didn't even hear from his nephew regarding the
horse again, he will consider approval of the purchase complete and seize possession of the
animal. His nephew didn't respond to this letter since he was preoccupied with auctions at the
time. He received advice not to sell the horse from Mr. Bindley, the defendant's nephew who
watched the auctions. He unintentionally sold the horse to someone else, though. While
Samuel accepted Amanda's offer and noted the car as sold, in contrast to Felthouse, the
offeree in both instances stayed silent and did not immediately reply to or accept the
offer.Silence did not imply acceptance, another person cannot impose any obligation, and any
acceptance of an offer must be made known in a precise form, according to the ruling in the
case of Felthouse v. Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35. It was also determined that there wasn't
any agreement over the horse, making the offer invalid. There was no contract of sale, despite
the nephew's intentions to sell the horse in response to the grievance and his expressed
desire.As a result, the nephew's silence in response to the complainant's offer did not indicate
acceptance. In this case, Samuel and Amanda did not have a legally binding contract because,
despite the fact that Samuel marked the car as sold on Facebook and Amanda acknowledged
it as an acceptance to the offer, he did not directly accept the offer because any acceptance to
an agreement made would need to be communicated effectively to be legally binding.

(c) Would your answer in (b) be different if Amanda is 17 years old when the
conversation between Samuel and her happens? (8 marks
Both the answer in b would be the same if Amanda is 17years old, in fact if Amanda is
17years old the offer/contract would immediately be voided. As according to the General
Rule (S2 Age of Majority Act 1971) any contracts made by minors which are under 18 are
voided. In the case Tan Hee Juan v. Teh Boon Keat [1934] MLJ 96, the plaintiff—a minor—
signed a land transfer in the defendant's favour. The transfer was observed and then recorded.
Later, the Plaintiff filed an application with the court asking for an order to scrubbing the
transfer via his agents. The minor's ownership of the land was to be restored when the court
found that the transactions were invalid. This had the advantage of keeping the money
obtained. Tan Hee Juan v. Teh Boon Keat case law is quite comparable to Amanda's case if
she was 17 because both instances included children in the contract. According to Void
Agreement - S66, when an agreement or contract becomes void, anybody who has benefitted
from it is entitled to restore or pay the person from whom he profited; hence, if Amanda
purchased the automobile from Samuel, Samuel has the right to withdraw the offer.