Technique:

Step 1: Imagine what the final answer should be.

Step 2: Write last paragraph.

Step 3: Use last paragraph to form content paragraphs.

Step 4: Write first paragraph.

Step 5: You can look at the bolded to understand the link between last paragraph and
content paragrahs.

Step 6: Here is the overall format

First paragraph has two opening sentences

Sentence 1 (you can choose one line)

This question deals with _____
This question raises the issue of whether _____
This question concerns about ______

Sentence 2 (you can choose one line)

All sections mentioned refer to the Contracts Act 1950.
Mention Contract Act 1950
Cindy is advised based on the law of contracts under the Contracts Act 1950.

Last paragraph has two closing sentences

Sentence 1 (you can choose one line)

Applying the above law to the given facts, ____
Applying this law, _____
In the given problem, _____
Based on the scenario, _____

Sentence 2
Therefore, Jenny should be advised that _____
Content paragraphs, either it can be three paragraphs or three main points.
Question 1
The question deals with distinction between offer and invitation of treat, ITT. All section is
referred to Contract Act 1950.

(Definition of) offer is said to be made when one person signifies to another his willingness
to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view of obtaining the assent of that other to the
act or abstinence. – S.2(a)[Tan Geok Khoon v Paya Terubong Estate]. When Cindy selected
the items and brought it to cashier counter, Cindy makes an offer to the salesgirl.

(Definition of) ITT is an invitation to others to make an offer. Displays in shop windows are
example of ITT.

In order to form a valid agreement, there must be an acceptance to the offer made. An
acceptance occur when the cashier accepted the customer’s money [Fisher V Bell]. The
question doesn’t mention the salesgirl accept Cindy’s money.

Applying the above law to the given facts, Cindy may be advised that there is no binding
agreement for the purchase of the shoes at half-price as the display in the shop was only an
ITT.

In question 1, try to link blue, bold.

Question 2
The question raise an issue whether Jenny has made an vaild acceptance of the proposal
(offer) made by Samy. All sections mentioned refer to Contract Act 1950.

One of the conditions for valid agreement is there must be an offer and this offer must be
unconditionally accepted by the offeree.

(Definition of) an offer is said to be made when offeror signifies to offeree his willingness to
do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of the offeree to the
act or abstinence [S.2(a)].

(Definition of) an acceptance is where the offeree signifies his assent. [S.2(b)]
Such acceptance must be abosolute and unqualified. [S.7(a), Neale V Merrit]

Counter-offer is where the offeree varies the terms of the offer.

Counter offer has the effect of extinguishing the original offer. (Hyde V Wrench)

Based on facts, she does not appear to have made a valid acceptance. Instead she seems
to have made a counter offer which extinguishes the original offer. Therefore, Jenny should
be advised that she has no right of action against Samy.

Question 3

The issue in the given problem is whether Meena had made a valid acceptance before the
revocation of the offer by Wong. All sections refer to the Contract Act 1950.

The general rule related to acceptance is that it must be communicated to the

proposer. Acceptance will only be complete upon such communication. Section 4(2) is an
exception where the parties use post to communicate.

Section 4(2a) provides that, in such case, the communication of the acceptance is
complete as against the proposer when it is put in a course of tramission to him, so as
to be out of the power of the acceptor: Ignatius V Bell. Applying this law, as Meena posted
the letter on 7th May, this will be the effective date of acceptance as against Wong, although
the letter was received by Wong only on the 9th.

The revocation of his proposal by Wong on 8th May by telephone is not effective because
S.5(1) - A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its
acceptance is complete as against the proposer but not afterwards. As the acceptance was
effective on the 7th as against Wong, his revocation by telephone on the 8th is not valid.

Therefore, Meena may be advised that there is a valid contract which she could enforce
against Wong.

In question 3, try to link blue, bold.

Question 4
This question deals with consideration. All sections refer to the Contract Act 1950.

Definition of consideration in Section 2(d) is the price paid by one party to a contract in
return for the promise made by the other. Consideration need not be in the form of money. It
can also be a promise to do or refrain from doing something.
In general rule, an agreement without consideration is void.

S.26 provides some exceptions. None of the exceptions apply in the given problem.
Applying the above law to the given facts, agreement due to lack of consideration from Ali
is void. Therefore, Ali may be advised that he cannot sue Samy for breach of contract.

Question 5
This question concerns agreements to pay statute-barred debts. All sections refer to the
Contract Act 1950.

(Definition of) statute-barred debt is a debt which cannot be recovered as the period of
limitation for enforcement of debt has expired.

The limitation period to enforce a debt is 6 years from the date it became due.
[Limitation Act 1953]

As a general rule, agreements without consideration are void. S.26 provides several
exceptions.
S.26(c) provides that a statute barred debt can be enforced if the following conditions are
sastified:
(i) The debtor made a fresh promise to pay the statute barred debt.
(ii) The promise is in writing.

Applying the law to the given problem, it is clear that debt of RM10,000 owed by Orkid to
Rose is statute barred since more than 6 years has lapsed from the date the debt fell due.
Thus, Rose cannot recover the loan.

The answer would not be different even if Orkid told Rose that she would repay the loan, as
the fresh promise to repay the loan was only made orally and not in writing as required
by Section 26(c).