Contract Law: Case Of Ho Ah Hyde V. Wrench
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUE: Whether there is a valid contract between Gary and Sam?
EXPLANATION OF THE RELEVANT LAW
Proposal is defined under S.2 (a) of Contract Act 1950, proposal is made‘when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence’. In short, we can say that ‘Proposal’ is an expression of a definite and certain willingness on the part of the proposal to be found by the terms of the proposal once it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. It must be clear and unambiguous word to prove a contractual intention on the part of the proposer as provided in the case of Ho Ah Kim v Paya Trubong Estate Sdn Bhd [1987] 1MLJ143. …show more content…
This principle had been applied in the case of Hyde v. Wrench. This counter-offer was not accepted by Gary and has been terminated when Sam and Samantha wrote to Gary stating that he was now prepared to accept the offer of RM 500,000, this action is actually making a new offer of RM 500,000 on 7 January 2015.
Under S.4 (2b) (CA 1950), the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Whether Gary will success indicted by Sam? Similarly to the case of Hyde v. Wrench. . Even though Gary received the acceptance from Sam but in this case it is the fault of Sam. Gary still a good defence in this case.
Another part for logical, they apply the law of acceptance by post, it is the communication of the proposal is complete when proposer receives the letter. It means that it must come to the knowledge of the proposer. For the illustration of revocation of acceptance, it means that an acceptance can be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not …show more content…
Sometimes the doctrine of estop or preclude the owner from denying the seller’s right to sell the goods and thus an innocent buyer may have a good title despite the want of authority of the seller. When the true owner of goods by his conduct or word or by any act or omission leads the buyer to believe that the seller is the owner of the goods or has the authority to sell them, he cannot afar wards deny the seller’s authority to
EXPLANATION OF THE RELEVANT LAW
Proposal is defined under S.2 (a) of Contract Act 1950, proposal is made‘when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence’. In short, we can say that ‘Proposal’ is an expression of a definite and certain willingness on the part of the proposal to be found by the terms of the proposal once it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. It must be clear and unambiguous word to prove a contractual intention on the part of the proposer as provided in the case of Ho Ah Kim v Paya Trubong Estate Sdn Bhd [1987] 1MLJ143. …show more content…
This principle had been applied in the case of Hyde v. Wrench. This counter-offer was not accepted by Gary and has been terminated when Sam and Samantha wrote to Gary stating that he was now prepared to accept the offer of RM 500,000, this action is actually making a new offer of RM 500,000 on 7 January 2015.
Under S.4 (2b) (CA 1950), the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. Whether Gary will success indicted by Sam? Similarly to the case of Hyde v. Wrench. . Even though Gary received the acceptance from Sam but in this case it is the fault of Sam. Gary still a good defence in this case.
Another part for logical, they apply the law of acceptance by post, it is the communication of the proposal is complete when proposer receives the letter. It means that it must come to the knowledge of the proposer. For the illustration of revocation of acceptance, it means that an acceptance can be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not …show more content…
Sometimes the doctrine of estop or preclude the owner from denying the seller’s right to sell the goods and thus an innocent buyer may have a good title despite the want of authority of the seller. When the true owner of goods by his conduct or word or by any act or omission leads the buyer to believe that the seller is the owner of the goods or has the authority to sell them, he cannot afar wards deny the seller’s authority to