Question

Bibi made an offer to supply 150 dozen of puddings at the price of RM15 per dozen to Gigi
on 15 April 2021. Bibi told Gigi that acceptance must be made within 10 days. Gigi wrote the
letter of acceptance and sent the letter to Bibi on 20 April 2021.

(a) Assume that the letter of acceptance reached Bibi on 15 May 2021. Bibi refused to
continue with the contract and Gigi is very upset. Gigi intends to sue Bibi. Advise
Bibi.

Issue

Whether Gigi entitled to sue Bibi because refuse to continue the contract or Bibi can refuse
to continue with the contract and sue Gigi.

Principle of Law

Section 6(b) of the Contract Act, an acceptance must be recording to the time prescribed by
the offer. If the time is not prescribed, the acceptance must be within a reasonable time.
Therefore, an acceptance must be made within a short time.

This principle is illustrated by case of Ignatius v. Bell (1913). In this case, Bell gave an option
to the plaintiff to purchase a piece of land on the condition that the option must be exercised
on or before 20 August 1912 by notice in writing. The plaintiff exercised the option by posting
the letter on 16 August. The defendant only received the letter on 25 August. The plaintiff
sued for specific performance.

Application

Based on the situation give, Bibi refused to continue with the contract and Gigi intends to
sue Bibi.

By applying the above principle, Bibi entitled to sue Gigi because the period between April
and May was unreasonable. It is because the acceptance must be made within a reasonable
time.

Conclusion

In a conclusion, Gigi not entitled to sue Bibi because the acceptance should be made within
short time. However, Bibi can sue to Bibi.
b) Assume that after Gigi has posted the letter of acceptance, she intends to revoke her
letter of acceptance. Advise whether Gigi can do so.

Issue

Whether Gigi can revoke her letter of acceptance after posted the letter of acceptance or
not.

Principle of Law

Section 5(2) of the Contract Act, an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the
acceptance comes to the knowledge of the offeror or before the offeror knows about it.

The principle illustrated by case of Dunmore v Alexander. In this case, when the letter of the
acceptance and the letter of revoking the acceptance reached the offeror simultaneously, the
acceptance was revoked effectively.

Application

Based on the situation given, Gigi can revoke her letter of acceptance because an
acceptance may be revoked at any time.

Conclusion

In a conclusion, Gigi can revoked her acceptance letter after posted the letter.
c) Assume that Gigi made an acceptance on 20 April 2021. However, in the letter of
acceptance, she indicated that she is willing to accept the offer of 150 dozen of puddings at
the price of RM10 per dozen. Advise whether there is a valid acceptance.

Issue

Gigi made acceptance on 20 April 2021 and in the letter of acceptance, she indicated that
she willing to accept the offer or 150 dozen of puddings at the price of RM10 per dozen.
However, at first Bibi Bibi made an offer to supply 150 dozen of puddings at the price of
RM15 per dozen to Gigi.

Principle of Law

Section 7(a) of the Contract Act, in order to convert a proposal into a promises the
acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. If there is any changes or modification to the
offer it will become counter offer.

Counter offer is a situation when Gigi make a proposal to Bibi, Bibi has the choice to accept
or to reject it. But if Bibi makes a new proposal by changing or modify the offer, Bibi should
have to made a counter offer.

The principle is illustrated by case of Hyde v. Wrench (1840). In this case, the defendant
offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff on June 6 for 1000 pound. On June 8 in reply, plaintiff
made a counter proposal to purchase the estate at 950 pound. On June 27, the defendant
refused to accept this offer. Two days later, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that he was
prepared to pay 1000 pound. The defendant refused and the plaintiff sued to specific
performance.

Application

Based on the situation give, when Gigi makes a proposal to Bibi, Bibi has the choice to
accept or reject it. However, if Bibi makes a new proposal by changing or modify the offer
such as changing a price of the goods, Bibi should to have made a counter offer.

Conclusion

In a conclusion, the acceptance is valid because Bibi make a counter offer.

Raju is a lorry driver working with Ah Seng. One day he was asked to deliver 5000 chickens
to Singapore before 10.00 am the next morning. He arrived at the Malaysian-Singapore
border around 7.00 am that morning but his lorry was not allowed to enter Singapore. Raju
was told that all chickens from Malaysia are prohibited by Singapore government for fear of
SARS. Raju decided to sell all the chickens at Pasar Tani in Johor Bharu as he afraid all the
chickens might die as they have not been fed since last night. Ah Seng later found out Raju’s
action and he is very mad. Advise Ah Seng whether Raju is liable to him.

Issue

Raju has sell all the chicken at Pasar Tani in Johor Bharu whether sell it in Singapore
because he afraid all the chickens might die as they not been fed since last night without ask
Ah Seng instruction. Whether Raju is liable to Ah Seng or not.

Principle of Law

Section 142 of the Contract Act 1950 provides that, “an agent has authority, in an
emergency to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss as would
be done by a person of ordinary prudence, in his own case under similar circumstances”.

However, it is impossible for an agent to get the principal’s instructions. During an

Section 67 of the Contract Act 1950 provides that, “It is duty of an agent, in case of difficulty,
to use all reasonable diligence in communicating with his principal and in seeking to obtain
his instructions”.

The principle is illustrated by case of Springer v. Great Western Railway Company (1921). In
this case, defendant agreed to carry plaintiff’s tomatoes to convent garden market.
Defendant’s employees were on strike so they unloaded the tomatoes. Some of the
tomatoes were found bad. The defendant then decided to sell the tomatoes locally because
they believe that the tomatoes were not in saleable condition when arrived at the convent
garden market. However, they do not tell the plaintiff about their decision. The the plaintiff
claimed damages based on the market price of the tomatoes in the convent garden market.

Application

Based on the situation given, Ah Seng later found out Raju’s action and he is very mad
because Raju did not ask Ah Seng’s instruction first.

By applying the principle, Raju is liable to Ah Seng.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Raju was liable to Ah Seng as they were not agent by necessity.
Tutorial Chapter 4: Sale of Good

Sham bought fried noodle from Cafe Seroja. After eating the food, he was hospitalised for
food poisoning. His friend, Tini, told Sham to sue Cafe Seroja. Advise Sham.

Issue

Whether Sham is entitled to sue Cafe Seroja after eating fried noodle and was hospitalized
for food poisoning.

Principle of Law

Section 16 (1)(b) of the SOGA implied this condition as to ‘merchantable quality’.

However, if the buyer has examined the goods and defect ought to have been revealed, the
buyer cannot claim that the seller has breached the condition. It is governed by caveat
emptor rule.

The principle is illustrated by case of Wren v Holt (1930) 1 KB 610. In this case, a customer
went to a restaurant and ordered some beer to drink. The beer given to him had been
contaminated with arsenic and because of this the customer feel ill. He sued the owner of
the restaurant for having supplied beer which is not merchantable. And the court awarded
him damages.

Application

Based on the situation given, Sham was hospitalized for food poising after eating fried
noodle from Café Seroja, Tini told Sham to sue Café Seroja because fried noodle are not
suitable for eat and unmerchantable.

By applying the principle, Sham entitle to sued Café Seroja because fried noodle is not
unmerchantable.

Conclusion

In a conclusion, Sham entitle to sued Café Seroja because fried noodle are defective and
not suitable for eat and it was unmerchantable.