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 New
Re : Koh Koh v Tom Tomes es Pub Publi lish shin ing g Hous House e Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) Attachment : No file attach
11 Feb 2012 04:29:22 PM 10 Feb 2012 07:50:21 PM
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 Koh v Tomes Tomes Publ Publis ishi hing ng Hou House se Posted Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
11 Feb 2012 10:43:33 PM 11 Feb 2012 04:29:22 PM
yes, its duty of agent. but what issue arise from this case. Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
New
Re : Re : Re : Koh Koh v Tom Tomes es Pub Publi lish shin ing g Hous House e Posted Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student) By : Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) Attachment : No file attach
12 Feb 2012 07:38:47 PM 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 Koh entitled 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 |
New
Re : Re : Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House Posted Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) By : Reply To : Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student) Attachment : No file attach
13 Feb 2012 12:56:55 AM 12 Feb 2012 07:38:47 PM
Thanks Alysa for giving some idea of issues Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
New
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Koh v Tomes Publishing House Posted Nurul Allyssa Binti Bashah(Student) By : Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) Attachment : No file attach
14 Feb 2012 02:18:54 PM 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 Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) Attachment : No file attach
07 Feb 2012 08:04:46 AM 04 Feb 2012 06:19:35 PM
ITT Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Pe rbincangan: Kes Sally Posted MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
08 Feb 2012 11:07:05 AM 07 Feb 2012 08:04:46 AM
Betul ke ITT?? ITT bukan offer yang dibuat oleh penjual.... tapi apabila sally ingin membayar baru dia menyedari 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... tapi Florist 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?? Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) Attachment : No file attach
08 Feb 2012 05:02:01 PM 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......... Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
08 Feb 2012 08:28:39 PM 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... Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) Attachment : No file attach
09 Feb 2012 08:15:09 AM 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 an offer 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
wrong....... If, there's any opinion from others about revocation of offer, is my plessure.....'SHARING IS CARING' Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
09 Feb 2012 10:26:38 AM 09 Feb 2012 08:15:09 AM
But,,,,ada juga issue kat sini which is as she was about to pay, she noticed that t he 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 the desired 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...... Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
09 Feb 2012 11:23:38 PM 09 Feb 2012 10:26:38 AM
Yes, refer Sec 5(1), 6(a) & 6(c) what about Q b) intention to create legal relation, can we discuss. Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted zalinawati binti razali(Student) By : Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) Attachment : No file attach
10 Feb 2012 08:15:08 AM 09 Feb 2012 11:23:38 PM
A contract is defined in Section 2 (h) of the Contracts Act 1950 as “an agreement enforceable by law”. To make a valid contract, the law requires that 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 constitutes intention and how to determine if intention exists. In such absence, we would have to refer to the English Common Law. To determine whether intention exists or not, the law divideds agreements into 2 classes :i) Commercial or Business Agreement ii) Social, Domestic or Family Agreement.
Social, Domestic or Family Agreement .....just explain abaout the persumption exist in Sosial or Domestic agreement...... Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) By : Reply To : zalinawati binti razali(Student) Attachment : No file attach
10 Feb 2012 07:48:11 PM 10 Feb 2012 08:15:08 AM
Zalina, thanks for the guide Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student) By : Reply To : Jarinah binti Jailani(Student) Attachment : No file attach
15 Feb 2012 07:04:14 PM 10 Feb 2012 07:48:11 PM
tq all. Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
Read
Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes 15 Feb 2012 11:52:47 PM Sally Posted NURUL FAHMI BT BACHOK(Student) 15 Feb 2012 07:04:14 PM By : Reply To : NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student) Attachment : No file attach thank you for the sharing Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message | Edit | Delete |
New
Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted Nur Afiq bin Daud(Student) By : Reply To : MOHD SUKRY BIN OMAR(Student) Attachment : No file attach
16 Feb 2012 06:55:57 PM 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.. Back to Top | Reply To This Message | Print Message |
New
Re : Re : Perbincangan: Kes Sally Posted NOR SITI KETIJAH BT ISHAK(Student)
16 Feb 2012 10:31:55 PM 16 Feb 2012 06:55:57 PM
By : Reply To : Nur Afiq bin Daud(Student) Attachment : No file attach 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 the local newspaper. Mamat, a finance graduate applied for the job. A month later, Mamat received a letter stating that his application had been rejected. Mamat was very frustrated and felt that the job was already his. Advise Mamat.
ISSUE THAT CAN BE ARISES FROM THIS CASE ARE : ISSUES:i.
ii.
Whether the advertisement made by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd to offer a job vacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper is an Offer or is an Invitation to Treat?
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 to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other 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 assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted” Section 2(c) of the Contract Act 1950, the person making the proposal is call the “promisor”. The promisor is also called the ‘‘offeror”. But, there is an exceptions to the general rule which is an offer must be distinguished from invitation to treat. It is a sort of preliminary communication at the stage of negotiation, which passes between the parties at the stage of negotiation. A response to an invitation to treat would not form a binding contract, whereas a response to an offer would create a binding contract. Examples are a price list, a display of goods with the price tags in a self-service supermarket, an advertisement, and an auction.
The offer is different from an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is only an invitation to induce offers or to instigate negotiations as illustrated in the case 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 Offensive Weapons Act 1959 for ‘offering for sale’ a flick-knife. The court held that no offence had been committed because the display of the knife was an invitation to treat, not an offer. It is important to distinguish between an offer and an invitation to treat because of its consequence but sometimes it is not easy to draw such a distinction.
First issue : Whether the advertisement made by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd to offer a job vacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper is an Offer or is an Invitation to Treat? In answering the first issue, Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd advertised a job vacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper. Whether an advertisement made by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd in a newspaper is an offer or an invitation to treat. An Offer is different from an advertisement. The general rule is that an advertisement is not an offer but is merely an attempt to induce offers or is an invitation to treat. This can be illustrated in the case of Coelho v The Public Services Commission [1964] MLJ 12 . In the case, Mr Coelho’s application for the post of Assistant Passport Officer as advertised in the Malay Mail was accepted. Later, due to his alleged misconduct reported by the Controller of Immigration, the Public Services Commission attempted to terminate his employment on the basis that he was appointed on probation. Mr. Coelho moved the court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondents. The court held that advertisement in the Malay Mail was an invitation to qualified persons to apply, while the resulting applications were offers that could be simply accepted or with imposition of additional terms of contract. Since the appointment letter of Mr.Coelho did not mention about the probationary period of employment, the respondents had made an unqualified acceptance of the appellant’s application, i.e. the proposal. Therefore, the termination was invalid. In Majumder v. Attorney-General of Sarawak [1967] 1 MLJ 101, the case also involved a news advertisement for the post of a doctor. The Federal Court held that an advertisement in newspapers for the post of the doctor was an invitation to treat. The question as to whether an advertisement is an offer or a mere invitation to treat depends on the intention of the parties in each case.
Therefore, applying the above principles, the advertisement by Ting-Tong Sdn Bhd advertised a job vacancy for a finance executive in the local newspaper 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 TingTong Sdn Bhd for his frustrated because he felt that the job was already his, with referring to the general rule is that advertisement in newspaper is not offers but an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is not an offer but is merely an invitation from one party to another party to make an offer. The advertiser is not making an offer through the advertisement but merely invites the readers or the public to respond with an offer. When the person who reads the advertisement responds with an offer, it is entirely up to the advertiser whether to accept or reject the offer made. A contract would only be 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 advertisement for the post of a doctor. The Federal Court held that an advertisement in newspapers for the post of the doctor was an invitation to treat. However, if subsequent to the advertisement, the offer in response to the advertisement 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 Passport Officer as advertised in the Malay Mail was accepted. Later, due to his alleged misconduct reported by the Controller of Immigration, the Public Services Commission attempted to terminate his employment on the basis that he was appointed on probation. Mr. Coelho moved the court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondents. The court held that advertisement in the Malay Mail was an invitation to qualified persons to apply, while the resulting applications were offers that could be simply accepted or with imposition of additional terms of contract. Since the appointment letter of Mr.Coelho did not mention about the probationary period of employment, the respondents had made an unqualified acceptance of the appellant’s application, i.e. the proposal. Therefore, the termination was invalid. Therefore, applying the above principle, Mamat received a letter from TingTong Sdn Bhd stating that his application had been rejected. His frustrated because he felt that the job was already his. In this case, it’s clear that the advertiser 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 with his application for the job. Since there was no acceptance to the offer, it
means that there was no binding contract between two parties. With referring to general rule, a contract would be only be created, if the advertiser accepts the offer made by the public. Thus, Mamat cannot take a legal action through the advertiser.
