Case Compilation (Offer - Free Consent)

Case Court Law

Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
Plaintiff wanted to park his car in
defendant's car park. When he took the
parking ticket, he did not read what is
written on the ticket and immediately put
The defendant is liable for the damage.
away the ticket.
Because the t&c should be stated at the
At the back corner of the parking, there is
time when the contract was made (when Section 2(h)
t&c stated that the car's owner is liable for
the plaintiff insert his money in the ticket Section 2(a)
any damage happen to their car &
machine & the machine give his parking
themselves.
ticket), not after the contract was made.
When plaintiff get back to take his car, he
suffered injury and wanted to sue the
carpark owner (defendant). Carpark owner
said they are not liable for that since they
have already stated in t&c
Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd [1893]
The defendant claimed that their medicine
can cured influenza & offer $100 to
anyone who still suffered the illness after The offer is valid since one can offer to
taking their medicine. The plaintiff took everyone.
the medicine hoping it was true. As long as that person follow every Section 2(h)
However, it happened otherwise and the instruction that the offeror asked, they are Section 2(a)
plaintiff wanted to claim the $100. entitled for that $100 hence making
The defendant refused to give saying their plaintiff entitled for it.
offer is not a valid offer since it is being
offered to everyone & one cannot offer to
everyone.

R V Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227

The government offer to give reward to
whoever can give information that can
lead to the murderer of one murdered
police officer investigation. Defendant & X The defendant is not entitled for the
Section 4(1)
was arrested as a suspect. reward as when he gave the information
CA 1950
Later on the defendant give information he did not know about the reward.
that eventually lead to the murderer. Then
he was released.
When he was already out, he found out
about the reward and claimed for it.
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1QB 394, CA The defendant was not liable for the
The defendant displayed flick knives in charge since there is no contract has been Section 4(1)
front of his shop. Then he was charged for as his action was merely an invitation for CA 1950
selling dangerous item. other party to propose on offer.

Hyde V Wrench
The defendant offer to plaintiff to sell his
land $1000. After few days, the plaintiff
called the defendant asking if he can sell The contract is not valid since the initial
Section 4(1)
the land for $950. After few days, The offer is already void by the counter offer
CA 1950
defendant did not agree with that new made by the plaintiff asking for $950
price.
Then the plaintiff immediately agree on
the initial offer which $1000.
Stevenson Jaques & Co. v. Mc Lean [1880] 5
QBD 346
The defendant offer to plaintiff to sell iron
at $40, nett cash, and will open the offer
until Monday. Monday morning, the
plaintiff telegraph defendant, asking if he
could accept the payment over 2 months,
or the longest that he can accept. The
defendant did not reply to the inquiry and
The plaintiff action was not a counter
sold the iron to the other party.
offer, but a merely request for further
The defendant replied to the plaintiff
information and should be answered, not Section 4(1)
stating he already sold the iron to the
to be treated as a counter offer. CA 1950
other party. While waiting for the
Making the plaintiff is entitled to sued the
defendant's reply, the plaintiff send
defendant.
another telegraph saying he would accept
the $40 offer. By that time, the plaintiff
received the defendant reply stating he
already sold it to a 3rd party.
Now the plaintiff wanted to sue
defendant saying he already breach the
contract. The defendant stated that the
offer was already void due to counter
offer given by the plaintiff.
Hyde V Wrench Section 2(b)
This does not fit the proposal terms
Hyde introduce a new offer at $950. Section 3

Ignatius v Bell [1913] 2 FMSLR 115

The defendant sent a letter offering to sell
his land to the plaintiff under the
condition the acceptance letter must be
sent within the time given and must be in The acceptance is a valid acceptance
Section 6(b)
writing. although the defendant received the letter
Section 7(b)
Few days later, plaintiff received the letter after the timeframe given since plaintiff
Postal Rule
and immediately reply the offer with letter post out letter of acceptance within the
Section 4(2)(a)
of acceptance in which he replied it within time given in the contract.
CA 1950
the time given. Hence the contract is valid.
However, the defendant only received
plaintiff's acceptance few days after the
timeframe given in the offer. Due to that,
the plaintiff wanted to sue the defendant.

Business
Albert v MIB [1971] 3WLR 291 House of Lords *tak faham
Agreement
Winn v Bull
Plaintiff and the defendant had a written
contract pertaining to a lease of house.
Business
However, in the contract is stated that The contract in unenforceable
Agreement
subject to a formal contract being drawn
up
No formal contract was entered

Balfour v Balfour
The husband is a civil servant in some
places. He promised to give his wife
monthly allowance. The contract is unenforceable since both
Domestic/Soci
However, due to health condition, her of them does not intent to bound by legal
al Agreement
wife cannot accompany him. consequences
Due to that, her wife wanted to take legal
action against him as he did not fulfill his
promised
Merritt v Merritt
The husband did not have a good term
with her wife, thus he get out from the
house. However, the house is named after
both husband & wife & to be mortgage.
After some discussion, the husband agree Different from Balfour v Balfour, since the
to give his wife some a portion of money contract is in written formed & has been
every month out of which the wife will pay signed by both parties, both parties have Domestic/Soci
the outstanding balance of the intended to be bound by the legal al Agreement
mortgaged. consequences, making the contract is a
The contract is being formed in a written binding contract.
formed and being signed by both of
them.
However, upon completion of the
payment, the husband refused to transfer
the house.
K Murugesu v Nadarajah
The appellant is a tenant to the
respondent. The appellant has asked the
respondent to sell the house he lives in at Section 2(d)
the moment, to him. The agreement falls under executory Section 26
The respondent agree sell it to him consideration, thus it is a valid contract Executory
effective 3 month after the agreement Consideration
was made.
After 3 month, the respondent refused to
sell it to the appellant.

Re Mcardle [1951] 1 CH 669

The father has made a promise to give the
house to his children after the mother
died.
Since the improvement was made before
Before the mother died, one of the Past
the promise was made, the promise is not
children wife has made some Consideration
enforceable since it is being considered as
improvement on the house. English Law
a Past Consideration
Later on, the other children has sign an
agreement stating they will pay a sum of
money to that children wife to pay back
the improvement made on the house.
Kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K. Jagatheesan &
ORS. v A.E. Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt
Schmidt, who is an engineer has help Tan
in obtaining a mining permit and also
helping him in the formation of the
Kepong Prospecting Ltd.
The company promise to pay Schmidt 1%
Past
of all the ore produced and sold as a
There was sufficient consideration moving Consideration
consideration of his service.
by Schmidt Section 2(d)
He continue to serve the company for
CA 1950
several years before both parties have a
conflict.
Then Schmidt was dismissed. Schmidt
wanted to claim for the payment but the
company refuse to pay him as they
claimed there was no consideration gave
by him.

Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040

The promise is unenforceable as there is
A promise had been made to pay a Consideration
no consideration in it.
witness, who has an order to attend the must have
The duty to attend the court was "A duty
court as a subpoena, 6 guineas for his some value
imposed by law"
trouble
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 114 ER 330
The court held is was a valuable Section 26 CA
The plaintiff paid 1 pound of rent to the
consideration though it is not adequate 1950
defendant.

Venkata Chinnaya v Verikatara'maya (1881)

LR 4
A sister agreed to pay a sum of annuity to
the brother, though he did not give any She was liable on the promise since there
Rules
consideration. was a valid consideration for the promise
Governing
Then, their mother had given the sister even though it did not come from the
Consideration
some land in exchange with the she must brother.
pay the annuity to her brothers.
When the sister failed to fulfill the
promise, her brothers sued her.

The adopted children's claimed failed

Re Tan Soh Sim Ors v Tan Saw Keow (1951) As it was contrary to Section 26 (a), as the
A woman, Tan Saw Keow before she dies promise was not in writing, & there was
stated she wanted all leave all of her no natural love and affection between
Section 26(a)
properties to her 4 adopted children. parties standing in near relation to each
The children did not give consideration in other's since the 4 children were adopted
return of the woman's promise & did not have natural relations (blood
ties) to that woman.
J.M Wotherspoon & Co v Henry Agency House
Defendant, a company based in KL has
ordered a confectionery from X company,
through plaintiff, a company in London. There were promises of compensation
Plaintiff, obtain the confectionery from a made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
company in Holland. However it could not be enforceable as it
After plaintiff delivered it to company X, is not supported by consideration.
plaintiff made payment to the dutch Under Section 26 (b), an agreement
company. made without consideration becomes a
This was done at the suggestion of the binding contract if it is a promise to Section 26(b)
defendant. compensate wholly or in part, a person
The defendant had promise the plaintiff if who has voluntarily done something for
company X failed to pay the price of the promisor.
confectionery to the plaintiff, they will pay Since the plaintiff action were based on
for them. the suggestion of the defendant, it was
Then, the X company has gone bankrupt considered not an act done voluntarily.
and unable to pay plaintiff. When the
plaintiff wanted to claimed the payment
from the defendant, they refuse to pay.
Karuppan Chetty v Suah Thian Section 30 CA
It was held that this contract was void
The contract allowed one of the parties to 1950
since the term "as long as he likes" is
rent a premise for RM35/month for "as Aspect of
vague and no certainty.
long as he likes". Uncertainty

Mohori Bibee V Dhurmodas Ghose

The appellant borrow some money from
the respondent who is a minor at that
time, with some interest.
After he managed the get the loan by a
Section 10 CA
way of mortgaged some of the houses
The contract of loan entered by the minor 1950
under the minor's name.
is void. Section 11 CA
He knew the respondent was a minor.
1950
After some time, the respondent state
that he did not honour the contract. His
mother then took action of declaration
stating the contract is void due to lack of
capacity.
Tan Hee Juan V The Boon Keat
The plaintiff who was a minor transfer his
land in favor to the defendant. The
General Rule:
defendant has paid for the price of the Since he was a minor during the contract
All contracts
land. was made, the contract is void and the
entered by
The transferred was witness and signed. land must be returned.
minor is void
After some time, the plaintiff took legal
action said that the contract was void
since he was a minor at that time.

Rajeswary & Anor V Balakrisnan & Ors (1958)

3 MC 178
Both parties get into a customary
Age of minor that can enter an agreement
ceremony ratifying the betrothal. Section 4(a)
pertaining to marriage is different from
Later, the defendant (groom) wrote series Age Majority
the other law.
of letter to the 2nd plaintiff stating his Act 1971
Hence, the contract was valid
marriage contract with the 1st plaintiff is
void due to reason during the promise
was made the 1st plaintiff was a minor
Government of Malaysia V Gurcharan Singh &
Ors (1971) 1 MLJ 211 Education is his necessaries.
Section 69 CA
The plaintiff has sponsored the defendant Hence the minor are obliged to pay back
1950
for his education amounting to $11,000. the money to the person entitled to.
But, the defendant refused to pay

Clyde Cycle Co. V Hargreaves (1895)

Test of
A racing motorcycle is a necessary for the
Necessaries
minor apprenticeship

Nash V Inman
The defendant wanted to take legal action
after the plaintiff who is minor (Minor at Since he already had adequate supply of
that time = 21 and below) refused to clothe and is necessary for his condition of
Test of
make payment for all his waistcoat order. life, the waistcoat is not a necessary for
Necessaries
Evidence showed by the plaintiff father him
showed that he already had adequate Hence the plaintiff action failed.
supply of clothes and necessary for his
condition of life.
Natesan V Thanaletchumi & Anor (1952) MLJ
1
When a minor has induced an agreement
with other party where he or she lie about
their age, they are not liable in the deceit
and it does not estopped them from
pleading minority

Government of Malaysia V Gurcharan Singh &

Section 4(a) of
Ors (1971) 1 MLJ 211 Education is his necessaries.
Contract
The plaintiff has sponsored the defendant Hence the minor are obliged to pay back
(Amendment)
for his education amounting to $11,000. the money to the person entitled to.
Act 1976
But, the defendant refused to pay

Doyle V White City Stadium Limited (1930)

English Law
The minor was a professional boxer, had a
(Section 13
contract with British Boxing Board of The contract is beneficial to him since it
Children &
Control, stating he will lose his payment if encourage clean and high proficiency in
Young Person
he is disqualified from the tournament. fighting hence the contract is bind to him.
(Employment)
The minor was disqualified as he punch
Act 1966)
his opponent below his belt.
De Francesco V Barnum (1890)
A 14 years old girl entered a 7 years
apprenticeship on stage with De English Law
Francesco; with the terms that the girl (Section 13
must obey all the rules made by De The contract was prejudice against the girl Children &
Francesco and cannot do as she likes hence it was an invalid contract Young Person
without De Francesco consent. (Employment)
One day the girl disobey the rules, making Act 1966)
De Francesco wanted to take legal action
against her.

Kesarmal s/o Letchman Das v Valiappa The order was invalid as the consent is not Coercion
Chettiar freely given since the sultan is afraid by (Section 15 CA
A sultan ordered a transfer under the the japanese officer. 1950) /
supervision of 2 japanese officer during The agreement is voidable by the will or English Law
the Japanese Occupation of Malaya option of the party involve (Duress)

Coercion
Welch v Cheeseman (1973)
(Section 15 CA
Due to afraid of the violence of the man
The transfer would be set aside (invalid) 1950) /
she lived with, a woman (the plaintiff)
English Law
transfer the house to him
(Duress)
Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
Barton, who is a managing director of a
company, has made a deed for his
company to pay Mr Armstrong, a sum of
money.
He also made the company buy Mr
Armstrong's shares worth a sum of
money. Mr Armstrong is the chairman of It held that a person who agrees to a Coercion
the board of the company. contract under physical duress may avoid (Section 15
Mr Armstrong threaten Barton to kill him the contract, even if the duress was not CA 1950) /
if the company did not buy his shares. the main reason for agreeing to the English Law
Barton thought of it and proceed with the contract. (Duress)
purchase as he thought it is a win-win
situation for him and the company.
Barton made a deed on behalf of the
company to carry out the agreement.
He later request a declaration that the
deed was executed under duress and was
void.
Allcard V Skinner
Ms Allcard joined a protestant sisterhood,
taking vows of chastity, poverty and
obedience. Due to that, she gave her Undue influence exist as the plaintiff are
property amounting to a sum of money to not allowed to seek any external advice
the sisterhood. without the consent of the lady superior.
One rules when joining the sisterhood is However, her claim was barred due to the Section 16(1) CA 1950
that she cannot get any external advice delay of several years after she left the
without the consent of the lady superior. sisterhood and wanted to claimed for the
After several years, she left the sisterhood, money
with her property amount to less than
initial amount.
She wanted to claimed for the balance
Tate V Williamson (1866) 2 Relationship of
Trust & Confidence
Defender is a financial advisor to plaintiff,
a 23 year old student, who at that time
His executor successfully claimed that the
had trouble pay his college debts.
sale of the estate should be void.
When he told his desire to sell his a part
The defendant should not have Section 16(2)
of his estate, the defender offered to buy
purchased the property without letting the CA 1950
it amounting to sum of money.
plaintiff know about all information Section 16(2)
Before the transaction was completed, the
pertaining to the value of the property. (a)
defender received report about the actual
Their relationship gave rise to a
price of the estate, which is much higher
presumption of undue influence.
than what he will pay to plaintiff.
Though he knew it, he still proceed with
the transaction without letting know the
plaintiff of the actual price of the estate.
Inche Noriah V Shaikh Allie Bin Omar [1920]
Mental Incapacity
The court void the gift made to him on the
The appellant, an old women lives and
basis of undue influence.
depends fully on her nephew (the Section 16(2)
The respondent was deemed to be in a
respondent). CA 1950
position to dominate the will of the
Due to that, she made an agreement Section 16(2)
appellant whose mental capacity was
stating wanted to gift her nephew her (b)
permanently affected by reason of age
land.
and bodily distress.
Later, conflict arose between parties and
the appellant want to revoke the promise.

Chait Singh V Budin Bin Abdullah (1918)) 1

FMSLR 348
Presumption
A presumption of undue influence on the
of Undue
grounds of unconscionable bargain was
Influence &
upheld when a moneylender sued a
Shifting the
borrower on a loan at 36% interest, which
burden of
was an excessive rate, and in the light of
proof
the fact that the defendant was an
illiterate man.
Weber v Brown The appellant’s statement that he counted
The respondent sued the appellant for the trees together with the written
damage as he said the appellant has made enumerated of trees amounted to fraud.
a false and fraudulent misrepresentation of The court also agreed that the Essential of Fraud
amount of rubber tress of an estate. representation made by the defendant had
The number of rubber tree in the contract clearly induced the plaintiff to exercise the
is much lesser than the actual amount. right to purchase
Letchumy Arumugan V Annamalay (1982) 2
MLJ 198
The plaintiff was an illiterate Indian
woman rubber tapper.
Defendant made a fraudulent
misrepresentation to the plaintiff and had
induced her to enter into a sale and
purchase agreement.
The agreement is voidable at the will of
The defendant had fraudulently Essential of Fraud
plaintiff
represented to the plaintiff that the
document she was required to sign was
for a loan she took and to free the land
from a charge.
In reality, it was for sale agreement
relating to the land and further
agreements to purchase 3 unapproved
sub-lots in her own land.

Keates V Lord Cardogan

The defendant let the plaintiff a house
It was held that the silence does not
which the defendant knew was not in a Must be false
constitute misrepresentation.
good condition. representation
Thus there was no remedy for the plaintiff.
The defendant kept silent and did not tell
the plaintiff about it.
Bissit V Wilkinson
The respondent agreed to buy a land
from appellant for sheep farming. Based
on the statement from the appellant, he
estimated that the land could hold 2,000 The statement from respondent were a
sheep. mere opinion hence it is not a
Must be a fact
However, the appellant never do a sheep- misrepresentation.
farming on the land, nor anyone else. Thus, the agreement could not be revoke.
Turns out, the land only could hold less
than 2,000 sheep.
The respondent took legal action against
appellant under misrepresentation.

Galloway V Galloway
A separation deed between a man and
Section 21 CA
woman was declared a nullity because it
1950
was made on the mistaken assumption
that they were married to each other.
 It was a valid contract
Tamplin v James
Because even though the defendant had
The defendant had buy a property from
checked properly before making the bid, Effect of
an auction site.
he knew that the tenants of the property Mistake /
After winning the bid, he realize that the
had enjoyed the use of the gardens. Section 23
property does not include the garden as
For this reason, he thought that they were
he thought it will.
included in the sale.

Sheikh Bros Ltd V Ochner

The appellant company granted to the
first respondent license and authority to
Based on the contract, both thought the
manage all sisal growing on certain land
sisal should be capable of producing an
in Kenya.
average of 50 tons per month through out Effect of
The licensee also include other than that
the term of the license. Mistake /
he would manufacture and deliver to the
Thus, the mistake was pertaining to the Section 23
appellant for sale sisal fiber in average
essential to the agreement, and the
minimum quantities of 50 tons per month.
agreement was void.
Both parties did not know that the size of
the sisal area was insufficient to
manufacture such amount.
Subramaniam V Retnam The contract was valid
The defendant had signed a written Because it is the common principle that a
Mistake as to
agreement pertaining to a loan. person who signed a contract by written
Document /
The agreement was in English language, document whether or not he understands
General Rule
but the defendant was have no the language in which it is written, is
knowledge about the language. bound by the terms of contract.

Awang Bin Omar V Haji Omar & Anor

A contract was made between the plaintiff
and the second defendant, which was
guaranteed by the first defendant who Exception:
There was a mistake as to the document
was induced by the second defendant to Not my deed
signed and therefore the first defendant
sign the document. (Plea of Non
was not liable.
The first defendant did not know English Est Factu)
and was persuaded to sign in the
mistaken belief that he was merely
witnessing his brother’s signature.