The issue of this question is whether Samuel willingly entered into a legitimate sale of goods contract with the shop in Orchard Road.
Rule of Law
The law on this issue is found in the common law and under stature law. In Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982), an offer was defined as a willingness to be bound by the terms of an agreement. Therefore, it is clearly stated that Samuel is willingly and has agreed to enter into a contract by signing on a receipt unknowingly that there is an additional of $8,500 to be paid. In the case of Gunthing v Lynn (1831), an offer cannot be vague, it has to be specific on every terms and conditions. Moreover, a receipt is not a contract. A cash receipt is a “simple document showing proof of a transaction that is often issued at the time of the completion of a sale” (www.wisegeek.org, 2013, paragraph 1). Thus, no agreement has been made as Samuel misinterpreted the amount as what was offered by Benson Ong earlier.
Under the Rules of Consideration, consideration must move from the promisee where the person to whom the promise is made must furnish the consideration. In Samuel case, he agreed to pay $1,500 for two mini ipads as quoted by Benson Ong initially before signing of the receipt.
After knowing that there was an additional amount to be paid and was asked for a refund, Samuel was threatened by another salesman, Hedges Ang to make the full payment. Since there was no valid contract and there is a threat to this issue, duress takes place: Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Bin Omar.
Duress is defined as “the use of force, false imprisonment or threats (and possibly psychological torture or “brainwashing” to compel someone to ace contrary to his or her wishes” (www.insitelawmagazine.com, 2013, paragraph 17).
This situation also falls under the act of Undue Influence. It is the “unconscientious use of one’s own power or authority over another to obtain a benefit or achieve a purpose by