QUESTION 1 The issue in the given question is to establish whether there is a binding contract between Unipacific Sdn Bhd

and Holee plc taken place or revocation takes places or not. An offer or proposal is important for the existence of effective contract. Offer defined as a proposal by one party (offeror) to another party (offeree) into a legally binding agreement with both of them which is they as an expression of willingness entered into contract (Chandra Bose, 2008). The both of parties also must be agree with the all terms in the contract and the terms of the offer must be clearly, accurate and certain. In offer, they must be communicated within the offeror to offeree. It is may be orally, writing and the combination of both mode of communication. This is illustrated on the case of Taylor v Laird. In the case of Taylor v Laird, Taylor stopped being the captain of Lairds ship during a journey. He then helped to work the ship home and claimed payments for this work. The court held that Tailor had not communicated his offer to do work and Laird had opportunity to accept the offer. Therefore, there could be no contract In the given question, Eva Liew is Managing Director of Unipacific Sdn Bhd, sends her offer by tax to Holee plc in Hong Kong at 1.00am (Malaysian time). Eva Liew also precisely maintain about terms of contract which is the contract must be completed within twenty four hours. It is shows that there are effective communication takes place at 1.00am among both parties and the term of contract accurate and certain. On the other hand, Eva Liew has consequently changed her mind and decides to revoke the offer. Revocation of offer means an offer can cease through term of revocation (Chandra Bose, 2008). It is also known as the withdrawal or taking back offer. An offer can revoke any time but it is must taken places before accepted by offeree. Furthermore, the effective revocation taken places when there are must be communicated to the offeree by the offeror or authorised person in order offeree has an actual knowledge of the revocation. It is will illustrated in the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven.

On the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (Chandra Bose, 2008), Van Tienhoven sends their offer by post from Cradiff to Byrne in New York on 1st October. However, subsequently he change mind and send revocation for his offer on 8th October. Byrne sent a telegram on 11th October which is state that he accepting the offer of 1st October. Byrne also sent a letter on 15th October for confirming the acceptance but on 20th October he received the revocation dated October 8th. The court held that Van Tienhoven revocation was valid because the revocation effectively taken place before Byrne accepted the offer. In the given case study, Eva Liew has change mind and willing to revoke the offer by fax at 8.00am on Malaysian time. However, the revocation made by Eva Liew secretary Emily told her that fax not working. It is show that the attempt to revoke the offer is not successfully. Subsequently, Eva Liew tries to revoke through telephone but she could not get through to Holee plc but she leaves a message to the security officer. It is clearly indicated that the second attempt of revoke also not effectively taken places because the security officer not authorise person. However, Holee plc sent a letter to Unipacific Sdn Bhd states that they accepted the offer at 11.00pm. Eva Liew finally gets through for revokes the offer to the Holee plc by telephone at 12 mid night. Based on that, attempt to revoke on offer by Eva Liew to Holee plc is successfully taken places. In this case, the acceptance already taken places by Holee plc for the offer offered by Unipacific Sdn Bhd and the revocation of offer effectively attempt after the acceptance. In this case, the subjects have to determine whether there is valid contract among Holee plc and Unipacific Sdn Bhd and as a same time have to establish whether there is valid acceptance before revocation. Acceptance defined as an unconditional consent to all the terms of the offer (Mei Pheng & Jeron). The offeree must agree to the all term and condition by offeror in order acceptance taken places. However, the acceptance exist when the offeree effectively communicated to offeror and the effective communication taken places when the offeror actual knowledge of acceptance. It is illustrated in the case of Entores v Miles Far East Corporation. In the case of Entores v Miles Far East Corporation, Entores was a London company and Miles Far East Corporation was an American firm with agents in Amsterdam. Both of agents used telex machines. Entores offered to purchase certain goods from the Amsterdam agents. The

Amsterdam agents stated its acceptance by talex. The question was whether the contract was made in England or Amsterdam (Holand). The court held that the contract takes places in England when the company in England has actual knowledge of the acceptance (Mei Pheng & Jeron). There is exception to the above rule of acceptance does not take place until communicated.

QUESTION 2 The issue in the given question is whether Peter, Tan and Kumar who are directors and shareholders of Prefab Sdn Bhd and them personally reliable for the debt of company which has now gone into liquidation.