UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FACULTY OF HOTEL AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

BACHELOR SCIENCE (HONS) CULINARY MANAGEMENT (HM 225)

FOODSERVICE LAW (HTF 653)

TITLE: ASSIGNMENT 1

PREPARED BY: MOHAMMAD FAIZOL BIN MAAROP (2008547013)

PREPARED FOR: DR. NURAISYAH CHUA BINTI ABDULLAH

MOHAMMAD FAIZOL BIN MAAROP 2008547013 (HM 225) ASSIGNMENT 1(HTF 653)

QUESTION 1 Mr Vick advertised to sell his bakery for RM 350,000 in a local newspaper. Gex saw the advertisement and telephoned Mr Vick offering him RM 290,000 for the bakery. Mr Vick eventually offered to sell the bakery for RM 320,000. To this, Gex said that she would need to have a look at the condition of the bakery before he would agree to such a price. They agreed to meet at the bakery at the Sunday of the week. However, on Saturday before Mr Vick and Gex meet, Mr Vick sold the bakery to Tony. Gex decides to take action against Mr Vick. Discuss. (5 marks)

ANSWER: In my opinion, Gex cant take a legal action to Mr Vick because the advertisement in the newspaper made by Mr Vick was only an invitation to treat, i.e an attempt to induce offer. Even though they have communicated by phone, but are still under negotiating according to section 7(a). There is no agreement has been made anymore between Mr Vick and Gex.

QUESTION 2 Roger wrote a letter to Fenny offering a wedding catering package for RM 40,000. The letter reached Fenny on the 25 September 2011. Fenny sent a letter of acceptance at 3 p.m. the same day. Roger changed his mind and decided to revoke the offer. He tried to contact Fenny by phone at 7 a.m. of 26 September but to no avail. On 27 September 2011, he went to Fennys house and informed Fenny that he would like to revoke the offer. Fennys letter of acceptance reached Roger on the 29 September 2011. Roger said that the letter of acceptance was void as he already revoked the letter of offer. Fenny insisted on buying the wedding catering package. Advise Fenny. (5 marks) ANSWER: In this case, the communication of acceptance was completed as against Roger when the letter of acceptance was put in the course of transmission to him, i.e. at 3 p.m. of 25 September 2011 by virtue of Section 4(2) (a) of the Contracts Act 1950. Hence, Section 5(1) of the Contract Acts 1950 provides that Roger has the right to revoke his offer at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against her i.e. at any time before 3 p.m. of 25 September 2011. Since in this case, Roger tried to revoke his offer after the communication of acceptance has been completed, therefore, the revocation could not be made. A binding contract has been made and Fenny can insist on buying the wedding catering package.

QUESTION 3 After an interview with the manager of MNO Caf Sdn Bhd, Lum received a letter of offer for the job of executive officer with the pay of RM 2 500. He wrote back to the enterprise as follows: I accept the job of executive officer with the pay of RM 3000. Later, the job was given to Muthu. (5 marks) ANSWER: There is no acceptance, according to Section 7 of the Contracts Act 1950, acceptance must be made absolute and unqualified. The purported acceptance made by Lum, which is qualified by the introduction of a new term is considered as counter-offer. It is not an acceptance. The counter-offer nullifies the original offer as illustrated in the case of Hyde v. Wrench.