Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Question 5

From the case above, what was Jason did is an invitation to treat when he
published an advertisement in the newspaper to sell his Property A at
RM1.5 million. Therefore, that is not an offer and it is merely a
preliminary communication. This is an attempt of Jason to invite other
people who is interested of the invitation to take action in making an offer.
This could be seen in the case of Majumder v AG of Sarawak where the
court held that the advertisement in newspaper was just an invitation to
treat instead of an offer.

Firstly, when Mr. Kong came towards and offered Jason to purchase
Property A at RM1 million, Mr. Kong is said to be the offeror while
Jason is the offeree. However, Jason refused to accept Mr. Kong’s offer.
Jason then conducted a counter offer by offering Mr. Kong RM1.2
million in selling Property A. Counter offer shows that there is no
acceptance because it has destroyed the original offer by replacing it with
a new offer. At this moment, the party has changed and now Jason
became the offeror while Mr. Kong has became the offeree after counter
offer made by Jason. The case law which is supporting counter offer is
Hyde v Wrench. For example, Ali offers Abu to sell his watch at RM100
but Abu made an counter offer to pay RM80 to Ali to purchase the watch.
However, Ali rejected the offer made by Abu. If at this time, Abu has
agreed to buy it at RM100, Abu tends to revive the proposal which is
originally made. This shows that there is no acceptance been taken placed
as Abu has rejected the original offer and it has no revival of it. Thus in
this case, there is no acceptance for the original offer (RM1 million) been
taken place by Mr. Kong when Jason conducted a counter offer.
Besides, Section 7(a) of Contracts Act mentions that the acceptance must
be absolute as well as unqualified so there is a consensus between the
parties. Hence, there will be no agreement at all if both of the parties are
not certain about the conditions or still negotiating. In this case, since Mr.
Kong wants to inspect Property A about the condition before accepting
the offer made by Jason to purchase at RM1.2 million, there is no
acceptance on 14th October 2016 done by Mr. Kong.

Furthermore, Section 5(1) of Contracts Act has stated that the revocation
of the proposal may be done at any time before the acceptance is
complete communicated to the proposer but not after the communication
is done. The case law which is supporting the section is Routledge v
Grant. Jason has revoked his offer to sell Mr. Kong Property A on 1st
November 2016 before receiving acceptance from Mr. Kong and his visit
on 15th November 2016.

In conclusion, since Jason has not receive any acceptance from Mr. Kong,
Jason has the right to revoke his offer on 1st of November. Lastly, there is
no offer and no acceptance in this case and hence, there will be no valid
contract available for Property A between them (Jason and Mr. Kong).