Cara Menjawab Soalan Law

7/16/2019 Cara Menjawab Soalan Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cara-menjawab-soalan-law 1/10

Koh v Tomes Publishing House

Posted by : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student)

Date Posted : 10 Feb 2012 07:50:21 PM(59 read/s)

Dear friends, can we discuss about Koh v Tomes Publishing House case

Attachment : No file attach...

| Reply To This Message | Print Message |

New Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House 11 Feb 2012 04:29:22 PM

PostedBy :

zalinawati binti razali(Student) 10 Feb 2012 07:50:21 PM

Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student)

Attachment : No file attach

The question is about duties of agent n the rights of the principal to d available remedies....

Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |

New Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House 11 Feb 2012 10:43:33 PM

Posted

By :Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) 11 Feb 2012 04:29:22 PM

Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student)


yes, its duty of agent. but what issue arise from this case.


New Re : Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House 12 Feb 2012 07:38:47 PM

PostedBy :

Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student) 11 Feb 2012 10:43:33 PM



if im not mistaken, the issues from this quest are:

1.the issue concerns the duties of an agent to his principal which is whether Gan has made a secret profit in carrying out his duties as Koh’s agent.

2.whether Gan has act solely for the principal’s (Koh) benefit or not.

3.whether Koh has right to claim back what he has suffered or what is Kohentitled to do

**pls inform me if there is any other issue or if im wrong. thank you.Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |

http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/postmessage.php?mainf=1279001&ttype=course&case=&cid=LAW166&grpid=8838&fmid=1279001&fid=706988&tid=0&module=course&pg_Page=


http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/printforum.php?ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&mainf=1279001&cid=LAW166&fmid=1279001&fid=706988&tid=0&module=course



http://void%280%29/

http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/postmessage.php?mainf=1279001&ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&cid=LAW166&fmid=1280127&fid=706988&tid=1279001&module=course&pg_Page=


http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/




http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/






New Re : Re : Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House 13 Feb 2012 12:56:55 AM

Posted

By :Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) 12 Feb 2012 07:38:47 PM

Reply To : Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student)


Thanks Alysa for giving some idea of issues


New Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House 14 Feb 2012 02:18:54 PM

Posted

By :Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student) 13 Feb 2012 12:56:55 AM



welcome. :)

urrent Topic

Perbincangan: Kes Sally

Posted by : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student)Date Posted : 04 Feb 2012 06:19:35 PM(70 read/s)

Assalam semua..

Saya ingin mengadakan perbincangan mengenai Kes Sally. Dalam kes Sally nie... ia sebenarnya boleh

diklasifkasikan dalam keadaan ape ye? Invitation to treat ke? Revocation of Offer and Acceptance?? Diharapkan

saudara/i semua dapat berkongsi pendapat / pandangan untuk kita menjawab soalan ini. Sekian terima kasih.

Attachment : No file attach...

| Reply To This Message | Print Message |

Read Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 07 Feb 2012 08:04:46 AM

Posted

By :zalinawati binti razali(Student) 04 Feb 2012 06:19:35 PM

Reply To : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student)


ITT


http://void%280%29/








http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/





http://void%280%29/





Read Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 08 Feb 2012 11:07:05 AM

Posted

By :MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) 07 Feb 2012 08:04:46 AM



Betul ke ITT?? ITT bukan offer yang dibuat oleh penjual.... tapi apabila sally ingin membayar baru diamenyedari bunga tu dh rosak dan membatalkan hasratnya untuk membeli bunga itu... Tindakan Sally

membawa bunga dan ingin membelinya dari Florist tue adalah kerana Sally yang membuat offer... tapiFlorist tue belum lagi menerima duit sebagai balasan penerimaan kepada tawaran sally tue kan?? So...

disini macam sally ada buat revocation of offer..... revocation can be made either written or verbal.....

hmmm.... ada sesape tak yang nak bagi komen??


Read Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 08 Feb 2012 05:02:01 PM

Posted

By :zalinawati binti razali(Student) 08 Feb 2012 11:07:05 AM



Display a lilies in the vases is ITT.

maybe, there is another issue whether there is a contract made between them.

So, about revoked tu, im not sure.........


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 08 Feb 2012 08:28:39 PM

PostedBy : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) 08 Feb 2012 05:02:01 PM



Kalau dilihat pada buku contoh jawapan tue...m/s 17... revocation can be made by proposer before

the complete acceptance... dalam kes sally nie... Display vases is the ITT that's correct! tp awareof lilies is welting she decided to not buy them.... that's is revocation of offer.... lagipun markahnyer

50markah... agakbesar,,, itu yang musykil...


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 09 Feb 2012 08:15:09 AM

Posted

By : zalinawati binti razali(Student) 08 Feb 2012 08:28:39 PM



What am i concern in this issue,

Sally has a right not to make any payment to the Rose Florist, because she just merely making anoffer to buy a lilies. A contract not has yet been made between Rose Florist and Sally. The contract is

only made at the counter or at the cashier's desk when the customer(Sally) pays for the items.

Since there is no binding contract between them, therefore Rose Florist cannot sue Sally for breach of

contract.

So, ape yg sy nmpak disini adalah issue, ITT, contract and breach of contract......my b i was

http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/





wrong.......

If, there's any opinion from others about revocation of offer, is my plessure.....'SHARING IS

CARING'


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 09 Feb 2012 10:26:38 AM

Posted

By :zalinawati binti razali(Student) 09 Feb 2012 08:15:09 AM



But,,,,ada juga issue kat sini which is as she was about to pay, she noticed that the lilies was wilting.

It's mean that, Sally dah buat offer kerana dia dah hampir nak buat bayaran maksudnya dia dah

sampai ke desk counter. As a general rule, The offer is made when customers select thedesired goods and bring them to the counter for payment. Hence, the offer comes from the

customers.

When Sally decided not to buy the lilies, may be juga ada revocation of offfer berlaku......

Plz response......


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 09 Feb 2012 11:23:38 PM

PostedBy :

Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) 09 Feb 2012 10:26:38 AM

Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach

Yes, refer Sec 5(1), 6(a) & 6(c)

what about Q b) intention to create legal relation, can we discuss.


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 10 Feb 2012 08:15:08 AM

PostedBy :

zalinawati binti razali(Student) 09 Feb 2012 11:23:38 PM



A contract is defined in Section 2 (h) of the Contracts Act 1950 as “anagreement enforceable by law”. To make a valid contract, the law requiresthat the parties to an agreement must have intention to create legal relation.Such intention may either be express or implied from the circumstances.

However, the contracts Act is silent as regards what constitutesintention and how to determine if intention exists. In such absence, we wouldhave to refer to the English Common Law. To determine whether intentionexists or not, the law divideds agreements into 2 classes :-

i) Commercial or Business Agreementii) Social, Domestic or Family Agreement.

http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/





Social, Domestic or Family Agreement.....just explain abaout the persumption exist in Sosial or Domesticagreement......


Read Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 10 Feb 2012 07:48:11 PM

Posted

By :Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) 10 Feb 2012 08:15:08 AM



Zalina, thanks for the guide


ReadRe : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes

Sally15 Feb 2012 07:04:14 PM

Posted

By :NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student) 10 Feb 2012 07:48:11 PM



tq all.


ReadRe : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes

Sally15 Feb 2012 11:52:47 PM

Posted

By : NURUL FAHMI BT BACHOK(Student) 15 Feb 2012 07:04:14 PM

Reply To : NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student)


thank you for the sharing

Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message | Edit | Delete |

New Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 16 Feb 2012 06:55:57 PM

PostedBy :

Nur Afiq bin Daud(Student) 04 Feb 2012 06:19:35 PM



Salam semua...

apa yg sy nampak dalam kes ni, florist dah buat ITT pd customer dgn mempamerkan lili di dalam pasu

tu..kemudian datang sally offer utk beli bunga tu..sblm bayar, dia sedar yg bunga tu dah rosak dan

dia menolak utk beli bunga tu...so issue dalam kes ni adalah ITT, whether there is an offer made by

Sally and whether revocation of offer made by sally is valid or not...btul x? kalau salah harap dapat

bantu..


New Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally 16 Feb 2012 10:31:55 PM

Posted NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student) 16 Feb 2012 06:55:57 PM

http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/editmessage.php?ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&mainf=1271715&cid=LAW166&fmid=1285864&fid=706988&tid=1271715&module=course&pg_Page=

http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/exforum.php?ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&type=delmesg&mainf=1271715&cid=LAW166&fmid=1285864&fid=706988&tid=1271715&module=course&pg_Page=

http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://void%280%29/



http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/editmessage.php?ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&mainf=1271715&cid=LAW166&fmid=1285864&fid=706988&tid=1271715&module=course&pg_Page=

http://iclass.ined.uitm.edu.my/GroupForum/exforum.php?ttype=course&case=&grpid=8838&type=delmesg&mainf=1271715&cid=LAW166&fmid=1285864&fid=706988&tid=1271715&module=course&pg_Page=

http://void%280%29/





By :

Reply To : Nur Afiq bin Daud(Student)


saya pun terpikir jwapan kes sally ni ITT,

refer m/s 12 law of contact display of goods in a self service shop

kes ni ITT sahaja @ revocation jgk tak sure......

Question No.3

Nama of Group : Zalinawati binti Razali, Rozita binti Tumin,Fairuzana binti Abd Aziz and Rusdahlia binti Ruslan.

Question No.3



Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd advertised a job vacancy for a finance executive in thelocal newspaper. Mamat, a finance graduate applied for the job. A monthlater, Mamat received a letter stating that his application had been rejected.Mamat was very frustrated and felt that the job was already his. AdviseMamat.

ISSUE THAT CAN BE ARISES FROM THIS CASE ARE :

ISSUES:-

i. Whether the advertisement made by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd to offer a jobvacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper is an Offer or is an Invitation to Treat?

ii. Whether Mamat can take action to Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd for his

frustrated because he felt that the job was already his?

In order to solve this problem we may refer to the Agreement an Offer or Proposal.

As a general rules :

Offer or Proposal + Acceptance = Agreement

Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 defines an offer or a proposal as :

“When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or toabstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of thatother to the act or abstinence, he said to make a proposal”

Section 2(b) states that :

“When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assentthereto, the proposal is said to be accepted”

Section 2(c) of the Contract Act 1950, the person making the proposal iscall the “promisor”.

The promisor is also called the ‘‘offeror”.

But, there is an exceptions to the general rule which is an offer must bedistinguished from invitation to treat. It is a sort of preliminarycommunication at the stage of negotiation, which passes between theparties at the stage of negotiation. A response to an invitation to treatwould not form a binding contract, whereas a response to an offer wouldcreate a binding contract. Examples are a price list, a display of goods withthe price tags in a self-service supermarket, an advertisement, and anauction.



The offer is different from an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is only aninvitation to induce offers or to instigate negotiations as illustrated in thecase of Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394.

In the case, the defendant displayed a ‘flick-knife’ with the price attached.

He was charged with an offence under s.1 (1) of the Restriction of OffensiveWeapons Act 1959 for ‘offering for sale’ a flick-knife. The court held that nooffence had been committed because the display of the knife was aninvitation to treat, not an offer.

It is important to distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treatbecause of its consequence but sometimes it is not easy to draw such adistinction.

First issue :

Whether the advertisement made by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd to offer a jobvacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper is an Offer or is anInvitation to Treat?

In answering the first issue, Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd advertised a job vacancyfor a finance executive in the local newspaper. Whether an advertisementmade by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd in a newspaper is an offer or an invitation totreat.

An Offer is different from an advertisement. The general rule is that anadvertisement is not an offer but is merely an attempt to induce offers or isan invitation to treat. This can be illustrated in the case of Coelho v ThePublic Services Commission [1964] MLJ 12 .

In the case, Mr Coelho’s application for the post of Assistant PassportOfficer as advertised in the Malay Mail was accepted. Later, due to hisalleged misconduct reported by the Controller of Immigration, the PublicServices Commission attempted to terminate his employment on the basisthat he was appointed on probation. Mr. Coelho moved the court for anorder of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondents. The court heldthat advertisement in the Malay Mail was an invitation to qualified personsto apply, while the resulting applications were offers that could be simplyaccepted or with imposition of additional terms of contract. Since theappointment letter of Mr.Coelho did not mention about the probationaryperiod of employment, the respondents had made an unqualifiedacceptance of the appellant’s application, i.e. the proposal. Therefore, thetermination was invalid.

In Majumder v. Attorney-General of Sarawak [1967] 1 MLJ 101, the case alsoinvolved a news advertisement for the post of a doctor. The Federal Courtheld that an advertisement in newspapers for the post of the doctor was aninvitation to treat.

The question as to whether an advertisement is an offer or a mere invitationto treat depends on the intention of the parties in each case.



Therefore, applying the above principles, the advertisement by Ting-TongSdn Bhd advertised a job vacancy for a finance executive in the localnewspaper is not an offer but is a mere invitation to treat.

Second issue :-

Whether Mamat can take a legal action to Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd for his frustrated

because he felt that the job was already his?

To determine the second issue, whether Mamat can take action to Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd for his frustrated because he felt that the job was alreadyhis, with referring to the general rule is that advertisement in newspaper isnot offers but an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is not an offer butis merely an invitation from one party to another party to make an offer.

The advertiser is not making an offer through the advertisement but merelyinvites the readers or the public to respond with an offer. When the personwho reads the advertisement responds with an offer, it is entirely up to theadvertiser whether to accept or reject the offer made. A contract would onlybe created, if the advertiser accepts the offer made by the public.

This is can be supported with the case of In Majumder v. Attorney-General of Sarawak [1967] 1 MLJ 101, the case also involved a news advertisementfor the post of a doctor. The Federal Court held that an advertisement innewspapers for the post of the doctor was an invitation to treat.

However, if subsequent to the advertisement, the offer in response to theadvertisement made was accepted, it would create a valid contract.

Coelho v The Public Services Commission [1964] MLJ 12 .

In the case, Mr Coelho’s application for the post of Assistant PassportOfficer as advertised in the Malay Mail was accepted. Later, due to hisalleged misconduct reported by the Controller of Immigration, the PublicServices Commission attempted to terminate his employment on the basisthat he was appointed on probation. Mr. Coelho moved the court for anorder of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondents. The court heldthat advertisement in the Malay Mail was an invitation to qualified persons

to apply, while the resulting applications were offers that could be simplyaccepted or with imposition of additional terms of contract. Since theappointment letter of Mr.Coelho did not mention about the probationaryperiod of employment, the respondents had made an unqualifiedacceptance of the appellant’s application, i.e. the proposal. Therefore, thetermination was invalid.

Therefore, applying the above principle, Mamat received a letter from Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd stating that his application had been rejected. His frustratedbecause he felt that the job was already his. In this case, it’s clear that theadvertiser had replied him a letter stated that his application was rejected.

It’s means that the advertiser did not accept the offer made by Mamat withhis application for the job. Since there was no acceptance to the offer, it



means that there was no binding contract between two parties. Withreferring to general rule, a contract would be only be created, if theadvertiser accepts the offer made by the public. Thus, Mamat cannot take alegal action through the advertiser.

Documents

Cara Menjawab Soalan Law