Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
69 views4 pages

Whether Zarila

The document discusses whether a valid contract was formed between Siti and Zarila for the sale of a car. It analyzes whether Zarila's letter of acceptance created a binding contract according to the postal rule. The postal rule states that acceptance is effective when posted, not received. Here, Zarila posted acceptance on the 14th, so a contract was formed then even though Siti attempted to revoke the next day. Therefore, when Siti sold the car to someone else, it breached the contract with Zarila.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
69 views4 pages

Whether Zarila

The document discusses whether a valid contract was formed between Siti and Zarila for the sale of a car. It analyzes whether Zarila's letter of acceptance created a binding contract according to the postal rule. The postal rule states that acceptance is effective when posted, not received. Here, Zarila posted acceptance on the 14th, so a contract was formed then even though Siti attempted to revoke the next day. Therefore, when Siti sold the car to someone else, it breached the contract with Zarila.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Whether Zarila’s letter of acceptance has formed a

binding contract between Siti and Zarila./


Whether there is a contract between Zarila and Siti/
Whether Zarila’s communication of acceptance is
complete against Siti.
LAW:
In order for there to be a contract, thre must firstly be an
agreement which consists of an offer and an acceptance.
Section 2(h) of the Contract’s Act defines a contract as an
agreement which is enforceable by law.
Section 2(b) states that an acceptance must be
communicated to the other party. However, there are
special rules regarding the communication of acceptance
by post. This is known as the postal rule and is contained
in Section 4 of the CA.
In Ignatious v Bell, the seller of the land offered to sell his
land . he said that the acceptance must be made on or
before the 20th. The buyer posted his letter of
acceptance on the 16th, but the letter of acceptance
reached the seller on the 25th. Although the letter of
acceptance reached the seller after the due date, the
Court held that when the letter of acceptance was
posted on the 16th, the communication of acceptance
was complete against the seller, that there was already a
contract between them on the 16th.
Based on Siti’s offer to sell her car, Zarila posted her
letter of acceptance on the 14th. According to section 4
and the postal rule, at the time the letter of acceptance is
posted, there is already a contract between the parties.
Therefore , there was already a contract between Siti and
Zarila on the 14th Dec 2016.
An offer can be revoked by a notice. Under section 4, the
news of the revocation must reach the other party
before the acceptance is made. The notice of the
revocation of the offer was sent by telegram on the 15 th.,
however, acceptance was already complete against the
Siti when Zarila posted her letter of acceptance on the
14th. Therefore, the notice of revocation is not valid.
Therefore there is already a valid contract between Siti
and Zarila on the 14th. When Siti sold the car to Muna,
Siti had breached the contract. Zarila could sue Siti for
damages, or she could claim the car from Muna.
Whether the advertisement to sell the car in the
newspaper was an offer or an invitation to treat.
Explain what is a contract, an offer, what is an ITT,
section?
A case on ITT.

The advertisement is not an offer , it is an invitation to


treat because Hana could reject anyone who contacted
her based on the advertisement. When SUlaiman wrote
to buy the car on 5th January, that was an offer.
Section 7(a)
Hyde v Wrench- FACTS?
Sulaiman offered to buy at 40,000. Hana replied that she
would accept at 45,000. This is a counter –offer, not an
acceptance. Therefore, there was no contract between
Sulaiman and Hana.

2(b) – acceptance must be expressed.


Felthouse v Bindley- FACTS???- silence is not an
acceptance.

You might also like