Today, the tutorial class was discussed about Law of Contract. All of the students have to form a group in 5 to 6 person. The question for my group to answer is same as the following:
Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase three bottles of face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to the counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided case(s).
The issue in this situation is there are a legally binding agreement between Wei and the Super Supermarket. Should Wei return back the goods to the supermarket?
In this case, it is an invitation to treat because the goods were displayed in the supermarket. The relevant case is Fisher v. Bell. The display of any goods with a price tag on it in a shop was not an offer but rather it was an invitation to treat.
When Wei is accepted the invitation, the situation is change to become an offer. Based on the Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act, the supermarket is offering Wei the face cream when the cashier is accepted the money from Wei. The relevant case can used in this situation is Pharmaceutical Society if Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist. In this situation, when Wei took the bottles, she offers to buy them and the sale will take place at the cashier’s desk if the cashier accepts the price.
Since Wei is accepted the offering from the supermarket and refer to the Section 2(b) of the Contract Act 1950, the offering become a promise. In Section 7(a) of Contract Law 1950, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified so that there is complete consensus.
Based on Section 5 of Contracts Act 1950, an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. The relevant case is Byrne v. Van Tienhoven. In this situation, the supermarket should not take back the goods and the revocation is not effective.
Based on those sections of Contract Law, there is a legal binding agreement between Wei and the supermarket. Wei should not return the goods to the supermarket.
Prepared by,
Fong Yok Yan (1071120015)
Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase three bottles of face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to the counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided case(s).
The issue in this situation is there are a legally binding agreement between Wei and the Super Supermarket. Should Wei return back the goods to the supermarket?
In this case, it is an invitation to treat because the goods were displayed in the supermarket. The relevant case is Fisher v. Bell. The display of any goods with a price tag on it in a shop was not an offer but rather it was an invitation to treat.
When Wei is accepted the invitation, the situation is change to become an offer. Based on the Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act, the supermarket is offering Wei the face cream when the cashier is accepted the money from Wei. The relevant case can used in this situation is Pharmaceutical Society if Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist. In this situation, when Wei took the bottles, she offers to buy them and the sale will take place at the cashier’s desk if the cashier accepts the price.
Since Wei is accepted the offering from the supermarket and refer to the Section 2(b) of the Contract Act 1950, the offering become a promise. In Section 7(a) of Contract Law 1950, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified so that there is complete consensus.
Based on Section 5 of Contracts Act 1950, an acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards. The relevant case is Byrne v. Van Tienhoven. In this situation, the supermarket should not take back the goods and the revocation is not effective.
Based on those sections of Contract Law, there is a legal binding agreement between Wei and the supermarket. Wei should not return the goods to the supermarket.
Prepared by,
Fong Yok Yan (1071120015)
No comments:
Post a Comment