TRIBUNALS

* not part of court system, set up under ministry

3TYPES

1. CONSUMER CLAIM TRIBUNAL

- When consumers buy something from businessman for his/her own use
- The consumer must not be bizman
- Claims under RM25,000
2. INDUSTRIAL COURT
- Cases regarding labour relations & trade disputes (means any dispute between employers and workers which
is connected with the employment or non-employment)
- Ministry of HR refer disputes to IC
3. HOUSING AND STRATA MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL
a. TRIBUNAL FOR HOMEBUYERS’ CLAIM
o Cases in which new house bought from property developer
o Disputes arises frm sales and purchase agreement
o i.e damages for late delivery or vacant possession ( do not obtain keys to their houses according to
schedule), house has not been constructed according to plans
b. STRATA MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL
o Cases related to apartment maintenance (either buyers paid money but the maintenance isn’t taken
out (fails to repair broken lifts or oth facilities) or buyer refuse to pay maintenance fee
o One who buys : property owner
o One who manage: Management corporation
o Decide on compensation not exceed RM250,000

SUBORDINATE COURT

1. MAGISTRATES’ COURT
1ST CLASS MAGISTRATES’ COURT 2ND CLASS MAGISTRATES’ COURT SMALL CLAIMS COURT
> civil and criminal cases > cases with liquidated demand >same with 2nd class
> delays hearing cuz 1st class MC in money ie interest charge, >only DIFF claimants must not
hears different types of cases contract claiments exceed RM5,000
> claimants under RM100,000 > hearing faster compared to 1st
> need to appoint lawyer, nedd class cuz only hear abt cases
to pay lawyers fee with liquidated demand in
money
> claimants must not exceed
RM10,000
> not recommend to appoint
lawyers, do not need to pay
lawyer fee

2. SESSIONS COURT

Hears:

 Civil cases up to RM1M

 Unlimited jurisdiction on cases related to motor vehicles accidents, landlord and tenant, distress actions (landlord
refuse to pay rent)

GRANT OTHER REMEDIES:

1. INJUNCTION
2. SPECIAL PERFORMANCE
3. RESICCIONS OF CONTRACT
4. CANCELLATION OR RECTIFICATION OF INSTRUMENTS
 SUPERIOR COURT

HIGH COURT

2 TYPES

1. HIGH COURT IN MALAYA

2. HIGH COURT IN SABAH & SARAWAK

HEARINGS OF

 CIVIL CASES FROM RM1MLLION ONWARDS *EXCEPT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, LANDLORD&TENANT DISPUTES
(which means do not hear cases which sessions court has unlimited jurisdiction in)
 Appeals from sessions court or magistrates court ( claimants over RM10k)
 Cases cannot be heard in sessions or magistrates’ court

COURT OF APPEAL

HEAR APPEAL CASES from high court

CLAIM FROM RM250, 000 ONWARDS

FEDERAL COURT

HEAR APPEAL CASES from court of appeal WITH GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL FRM FED COURT

* HIGHEST COURT
 LAW TOPIC 2 PART 1 FORMATION OF CONTRACT

1. [slide1] what is a contract?

a. Consist of an agreement that is legally binding on both parties
b. If a contract is breached by a party in default, the innocent party can enforce the agreement in court of
law
2. How contract can be made?
a. By orally
b. In writing
c. By conduct of parties , habits/ consistent practice
3. Valid contract must have a few essential elements
a. ITTs (invitation to treat) / Proposal
b. Acceptance
c. Consideration
d. ITCLR (intention to create legal relations
e. Certainty of terms
f. Formalities
g. Legal capacity
h. Free consent of parties ( coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake)
i. Legality or lawfulness of object
s.10 (1) Contracts Act 1950
-All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void
s.2 (g),(h) An agreement not enforceable by law is void. An agreement enforceable by law is contract.

 1st element (ITTS & Proposal)

o ITTS (invitation to treat)
 Parties are still in negotiation state
 KW: pm for more info, contact if interested
 EXAMPLE: advertisement (Patridge v Crittenden), display of goods(Fisher v Bell), auction 拍卖,
brochures, quotations
 Is an invitation to another party to make a proposal
 Do not intent any legal action *agreement
 Thus, not legally binding
o PROPOSAL
 Final offer
 KW: first come first serve
 EXAMPLE: Automatic Vending Machine *Machine owner makes a proposal,
Advertisement with reward (case Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball) cuz got intention to
create legal relation
 Not yet legally binding, only bind when acceptor accepts the proposal
 Proposer/offeror propose proposal to offeree and offeree who accepts the proposer/offer is
acceptor
 2 different kinds of proposal:
Bilateral (Both sides) Unilateral (One sided)
- NEGOTIATION (between 2 parties for - PROPOSAL (to the world-at-large, general
offeree indicate interest) public)
- PROPOSAL ( to a particular people or group) Proposer is ready and willing to enter a
- ACCEPTANCE (by offeree) contract with anyone who fulfils the
proposer’s terms and conditions
- ACCEPTANCE (by the person who performs
the terms and conditions)
s. 8 CA 1950 case Carlil v Carbolic Smoke
Ball
s.2 (a) CA 1950
A proposal is made when one person signifies to another person his willingness to do or to abstain from doing something,
in order to obtain the assent of that other person (case Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong)
CASES (FACTS, DECISION, PRINCIPLES)
PROPOSAL PRESTON CORPORATION SDN BHD v Edward Leong
s.2 (a) CA Principle
1950 Proposer made up his mind willing to sell when the buyer agrees to buy
- Proposer uses clear and unambiguous words
- to show that he is ready and willing to be bound by the terms of the proposal
- without any further negotiation
- If the other party accepts his proposal
ADVERTISE PATRIDGE v Crittenden, COELHO v Public Service Commission
MENT Fact
The defendant inserted an advertisement magazine for caged bird enthusiasts stating that he had finches for sale at 25
shillings each. The defendant was prosecuted and convicted for an offer under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, which
makes it illegal to offer finches for sale. The defendant appealed.
Decision
On appeal, the court held that he had been convicted wrongly and that the advertisement was not an offer but merely
an invitation to treat
Principle
Generally, advertisements are considered to be an invitation to treat
CARLILL v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co s.8 CA 1950
FACT
The defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, placed an advertisement in a newspaper for their products, stating
that any person who purchased and used their product but still contracted influenza despite properly following the
instructions would be entitled to a £100 reward. The advert further stated that the company had demonstrated its
sincerity by placing £1000 in a bank account to act as the reward. The claimant, Mrs Carlill, thus purchased some
smoke balls and, despite proper use, contracted influenza and attempted to claim the £100 reward from the
defendants. The defendants contended that they could not be bound by the advert as it was an invitation to treat
rather than an offer on the grounds that the advert was: mere ‘puff’ and lacking true intent; that an offer could not be
made ‘to the world’; the claimant had not technically provided acceptance; the wording of the advert was
insufficiently precise; and, that there was no consideration, as necessary for the creation of a binding contract in law.
DECISION
The court of appeal unanimously rejected the company’s arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract
for $100 with Mrs Carlil. Among the reasons given by the court were that:
- The advertisement was a unilateral offer to the entire world.
- satisfying the conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer
- purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted good consideration because it was a distinct detriment
incurred at the behest of the company and furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the ad, was a
clear benefit to carbolic
- the company claim that $1000 was deposited at alliance bank showed its serious intention to be legally bound
Principle
Advertisement for a payment of a reward may be construed as a proposal
DISPLAY FISHER v Bell
OF GOODS FACT
A shopkeeper had offered for sale a flick knife and exhibited it in his shop window. As the law prohibited the sale of
offensive weapons, he was convicted 定罪.
Decision
The court held that offer for sale has a technical meaning in law, and a shop window display is an invitation to treat,
not an offer in contractual 合同的 terms. The conviction is therefore quashed
PRINCIPLE
Generally, display of goods in a shop amounts to an invitation to treat by the shop.
A proposal is made when a cust takes the goods to the counter to make payment. The contract of sale would only be
made at the counter, when the cashier accepts payment from cust
COMMUNI R v Clarke
CATED Principle
TO If the offeree does not know about the proposal and he does something that is a co-incidence of what was offered,
OFFEREE this is not considered as acceptance
s.4(1) CA TAYLOR v Laird
1950 FACT
The captain of ship, employed for a trading and exploring voyage, refused to go any further and resigned his
command. He subsequently help to work the ship home and wanted to claim his wage for this work.
Decision
Held that he could not do so as his offer to help bring the ship home was not communicated, therefore there had been
no opportunity to accept or reject his offer
Principle
 A proposal is not communicated then there is no proposal

 2nd element (ACCEPTANCE)

o 条件： s. 7(a) must be absolute and unqualified based exactly on the same terms and conditions of proposal
o COUNTER PROPOSAL v REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
 Counter proposal
 Another proposal carried out in terms of the first proposal
 Eg. Offer another price
 Once counter proposal is carried out, the origin proposal is terminated/ ends the ori proposal
 Case Hyde v Wrench
 Request for further information
 Does not terminate the original proposal
 Eg. Pay by cash, or request for delay of payment (x counter proposal, x accept/decline)
 Cases Stevenson, Jacques & Co v Mc Lean

o “SUBJECT TO CONTRACT” agreement

Must be stated if the parties are still in nego state, do not intend to be bound until a formal contract is signed

o ACCEPTANCE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PROPOSER OR AUTHORISED AGENT

s. 3 CA1950 Acceptance is communicated by any act or omission which has the intention or effect of communicating it
 Silence does not amount to acceptance
Proposer cannot require the offeree to inform him if the offeree wishes to reject the proposal
Proposer 不可以说如果 Offeree 不回复就代表 Offeree 要买
S.2 (b) CA1950 FELTHOUSE v Bindley, Fraser v Everret

 Exceptions:
 Bilateral
Proposal himself waives the requirement for offeree to communicate his acceptance
在 Proposer 同意的前提下。可以说 Offeree 要买的话，不需要告诉 Proposer，直接汇钱到户口
 Unilateral
S.8 CA1950 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co:
Where a promise is made in return for the performance of an act, the offeree needs not communicate
his acceptance
The Offeree only needs to perform the acts or fulfils the conditions of the proposal
告示大众的文章，大众不需要告知举办方，可以直接行动

o MODE OF ACCEPTANCE
s.7 (b) Acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner unless the proposer prescribes a particular
mode/ method for communication of the acceptance
 INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION
Eg. Face to face, phone, whatsapp, messenger, sms
Acceptance is communicated only when the proposer knows abt the acceptance

 COMMUNICATION BY POST
Eg. The post, courier, telegram
When the offeree uses the post in order to communicate his acceptance, the postal rule of acceptance shall
apply. 4 conditions to be fulfilled:
 The parties must have contemplated about using the post as a way to communicate acceptance
 It must be reasonable to use the post
 The letter must have been correctly addressed and given to a proper postal authority
 The proposer has not excluded the use of post
CASES

COUNTER HYDE v Wrench

PROPOSAL FACTS
The defendant, Mr Wrench, offered to sell the farm he owned to the complainant, Mr Hyde. He offered to sell the
property for £1,200, but this was declined by Mr Hyde. The defendant decided to write to the complainant with another
offer; this time to sell the farm to him for £1,000. He made it clear that this would be his final offer regarding the
property. In response, Mr Hyde offered £950 for the farm in his letter. This was refused by Mr Wrench and he confirmed
this with the complainant. Mr Hyde then agreed to buy the farm for £1,000, which was the sum that had previously
been offered. However, Mr Wrench refused to sell his farm.
ISSUES
The complainant brought an action for specific performance, claiming that as Mr Wrench refused to sell the farm, this
was a breach of contract. The issue in this case was whether there was a valid contract between the parties and if a
counter offer was made in discussions, whether the original offer would still remain open.
HELD
The court dismissed the claims and held that there was no binding contract for the farm between Mr Hyde and Mr
Wrench. It was stated that when a counter offer is made, this supersedes and destroys the original offer. This original
offer is no longer available or on the table. In this case, when Mr Hyde offered £950, he cancelled the £1,000 offer and
could not back track and accept.

REQUEST FOR Stevenson, Jacques& Co v Mc Lean

FURTHER INFO FACTS
The defendant, Mclean, offered to sell iron to the complainant, Stevenson Jaques & Co. This was for the price of 40s and
the offer would remain open until Monday. The complainant sent a telegram to the defendant, asking whether he
would accept a payment of 40 over a two-month period, or what his longest limit would be for payment. McLean did not
respond to this telegram. The defendant sold the iron to another party, but did not inform the complainant of this
action. On Monday morning, the complaint sent a telegram to accept the offer, unaware it had been sold.
ISSUES
The complainant sued the defendant for non-delivery of the iron and that this was a breach of contract. The issue in the
case was whether there was binding contract between the parties and if the telegram sent by the complainant was an
inquiry for information or a counter offer.
HELD
The court heard the complainant was only inquiring for more information about whether the terms of the offer could be
changed; there was no specific wording to indicate that it was a counter offer or rejection. This was in contrast to Hyde v
Wrench. This meant that the offer made by the defendant was still valid and the second telegram by the complaint
formed a binding contract. While the promise of the offer remaining open until Monday was not itself binding and an
offeror can revoke this at any time, there had been no revocation communicated to the complainant in this case.

SILENCE =/= FELTHOUSE v Bindley, Fraser v Everret S.2 (b) CA1950

ACCEPTANCE Facts
The complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a conversation with his nephew, John Felthouse, about buying his horse. After
Except Carlill their discussion, the uncle replied by letter stating that if he didn’t hear anymore from his nephew concerning the horse,
case (unilat) he would consider acceptance of the order done and he would own the horse. His nephew did not reply to this letter
and was busy at auctions. The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sell the
horse. However, by accident he ended up selling the horse to someone else.
Issues
Paul Felthouse sued Mr Bindley in the tort of conversion, with it necessary to show that the horse was his property, in
order to prove there was a valid contract. Mr Bindley argued there was no valid contract for the horse, since the nephew
had not communicated his acceptance of the complainant’s offer. The issue in this case was whether silence or a failure
to reject an offer amount to acceptance.
Held
It was held that there was no contract for the horse between the complainant and his nephew. There had not been an
acceptance of the offer; silence did not amount to acceptance and an obligation cannot be imposed by another. Any
acceptance of an offer must be communicated clearly. Although the nephew had intended to sell the horse to the
complainant and showed this interest, there was no contract of sale. Thus, the nephew’s failure to respond to the
complainant did not amount to an acceptance of his offer.