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 exerting improper pressure”. (Kaplan Singapore, 2013, page 66).
Application of Law
The significant fact in the problem is that Samuel agreed to purchase two mini ipads for the price of $1,500 as what was offered by Benson Ong initially. The receipt is nothing but just a proof of Samuel’s transaction but knowing that Samuel is a tourist, Benson has taken the opportunity to cheat him to sign on the receipt to act as a contract with a hidden agenda.
As what was discussed under the rule of law, we can see that Samuel did enter into the agreement willingly when the price was first quoted. However, upon being told that he needed to pay an extra $8,500, he wanted to back out of the agreement.
Samuel could bring the issue to small claims tribunal where they “deals with resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers” the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to “hear claims not exceeding $10,000” (Kaplan Singapore, 2013, page 20).
In Barton v Armstrong (1976), a threatened to kill B if B did not enter a contract which was wholly unfavourable to B whose facts could be identical to the case of Samuel.
Although B did signed a real contract, it is suggested that the result is the same in both cases. In saying that Samuel was “interested in buying” the mini ipads, Samuel did not display a will or intention to be bound in contract. The receipt is not a firm indication that Samuel is binded to a contract with an additional amount of $8,500. On top of that, he was threatened by Hedges Ang to pay up the total amount. There was indeed undue influence and so there was no offer accepted.
In conclusion, there was no agreement been made as the “contract” was too vague and Benson did not explain the terms and conditions of the “contract”. Therefore, there is a rejection in the offer.
The issue was whether the school failed to provide a safe working environment and has wrongfully confine Lily.
Rule of Law
The law of this...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document