Mr Lim enters AlwaysCheap Supermarket and selects some groceries. He then proceeds to select a...

Question

Mr Lim enters AlwaysCheap Supermarket and selects some groceries. He then proceeds to select a toaster oven. There’s a sign beside the toaster that says, “Items are for display purposes only”. Mr Lim ignores the sign and places the toaster oven in his trolley and walks to the cashier counter to pay. Upon reaching the counter, the cashier refuses to accept Mr Lim’s money and refuses to sell him the toaster oven. Mr Lim gets annoyed and in a huff, asks the cashier to accept the money. She refused to answer him and turned away. Mr Lim then says that he is going to take the toaster oven anyway and then throws down the money at the counter and walks off with the toaster oven.Has a contract been made between Mr Lim and AlwaysCheap Supermarket at this point?1) Your answer and findings must be supported adequately with relevant case law and examples.2) You are also required to write a 10 page report, Font 12 Arial with 1.5 spacing which will be due on the day of your presentation.es and laws.So what i need for this assignment to be answered is that the expert has to answer this assignment based on Malaysian Law Cases. You can answer UK law cases as well but my lecturer said please use Malaysian Law Cases MORE than UK law cases for example like 3 Malaysian law cases and 2 UK law cases or 8 Malaysian law cases and 2 UK law cases. It has to be more in Malaysian Law cases rather than UK law cases since I'm a Malaysian. The ratio would be 80% Malaysian law cases and 20% UK law cases.So basically, please use more Malaysian Law Cases and less UK law Cases.There's no word limit but the page limit is 10 pages.PAGE LIMIT: 10 Pages.I hope you can answer this assignment brilliantly. Thank you.
	
Document Preview: Business Law Individual Assignment September 2012Weightage:		25%	Mr Lim enters AlwaysCheap Supermarket and selects some groceries. He then proceeds to select a toaster oven. There’s a sign beside the toaster that says, “Items are for display purposes only”. Mr Lim ignores the sign and places the toaster oven in his trolley and walks to the cashier counter to pay. Upon reaching the counter, the cashier refuses to accept Mr Lim’s money and refuses to sell him the toaster oven.  Mr Lim gets annoyed and in a huff, asks the cashier to accept the money. She refused to answer him and turned away. Mr Lim then says that he is going to take the toaster oven anyway and then throws down the money at the counter and walks off with the toaster oven.Has a contract been made between Mr Lim and AlwaysCheap Supermarket at this point? 1)  Your answer and findings must be supported adequately with relevant case law and examples. 2) You are also required to write a 10 page report, Font 12 Arial with 1.5 spacing which will be due on the day of your presentation. 3) Referencing must be in APA Format.								(Total: 25 marks)

Robert · Accepted Answer

Malaysian Law
Running Head: CONTRACT FORMATION
1
PAGE  
8
CONTRACT FORMATION
Contract Formation
Name
Institution
Contract Formation
Case Overview
 From the case study available, it is evident that there is no contract made between Mr. Lim and the AlwaysCheap Supermarket despite the fact that Liam paid for the toaster meant for display purposes. The paper provides an insight into the reasons why there was no contract between the two parties.
Contract Formation
Despite the definition provided for a law of contract, there has to be an agreement for the contract to be termed as valid. A contract is valid only if it has an enforceable agreement, which gives rise to obligations for the present parties of the contract. However, not all existing agreements can be termed as legally binding contracts. This is supported by the fact that it would not be practical for the Malaysian law to enforce all agreements. In the Malaysian law, social and domestic laws are not termed as enforceable. They are only regarded as enforceable unless if there is a clear evidence that there is an intent of coming up with a legal relationship between the parties available. Taking into consideration the case Balfour v Balfour, it is evident that some agreements are not enforceable by the court. The case Balfour v Balfour was based on an agreement between spouses regarding matters affecting their daily lives, which cannot be interpreted by the court despite the existence of a consideration (Recent Cases, 1952).
For a contract to be formed, there are some factors of value, which ought to be taken into consideration for both parties to be in an agreement. For instance, the promises made ought not to be gratuitous. Within any contract, an agreement can be available either in the form of writing or simply by word of mouth. Any agreement present in a contract is meant to have legal consequences. Despite the fact that it is considered to be misleading, an agreement requires a consensus ad idem; a mind meeting of the available parties bound by the contract. The fact is regarded as misleading since the law does not pay much attention to what is present in the minds of the individuals bound by the agreement (Alarie, 2009). Taking into consideration the case Storer v Manchester City Council it is evident that the judge does not look at the actual intent present in the mind of the available party but the outward appearances present for a contract to be formed (Ohly, n.d).
The elements of a Contract Law in Malaysia
In Malaysia, the Malaysian CA 1950 Act 136, which was revised in 1974, provides a definition as well as a composition of the contract. A contract is composed of a series of essential constituents referred to as the elements of a contract. For a contract to be legally bound under the Malaysian law, there are several elements of the contract, which have to be satisfied. These include the offer, acceptance of an offer, intention of legal relations creation, consideration, capacity, and certainty (‘The Legal Framework of the Islamic Financial System: A Study of the Cases in Malaysia’, 2010, p. 88).
Offer and Acceptance
Making a decision regarding whether or not the parties have reached an agreement, one party has to provide an offer and the other party available in the contract has to show acceptance of the offer provided. An example of the main terms, which can be proposed, includes the prices. Taking into consideration the case Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd (1993), it is evident that the formation of contracts shows more concern for the intention of the parties and the commercial reality in comparison to any technicality associated with matching acceptance and the offer (‘the fact of agreement’, n.d, p. 14). In addition, within a supermarket scenario where there are daily consumer transactions taking place, detecting any genuine processes of bargaining or price negotiations is difficult. An offer refers to a proposal made by an individual regarding an entry into a contract, on identifying a set of terms, with the intent of having bound to the contract immediately an acceptance is provided in the offer made (‘the fact of agreement’, n.d).
An Illustration of an Offer and an Invitation to Treat
There are various Malaysian court cases, which illustrate an offer and an invitation to treat such as in the case of Canadian Dyers Association Ltd v. Burton (1920). From the court case, it is evident that a contract only exists if there is an acceptance of the offer. It is the obligation of the Malaysian court to examine any circumstances in order to determine whether a party is simply quoting a price or making an offer, which has to be accepted. According to the court case Goldthorpe v. Logan (1943), it is evident that an advertisement can be regarded as an offer and not an invitation to treat. If a party accepts the offer, the party is entitled to a reward in cases of a contract breach (Anonymous, n.d). Moreover, taking into consideration the case, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (1953), it is evident that when goods are put on a shelf, an invitation to treat is made and not an offer. There is no contract in existence lest a cashier accepts the offer that a customer makes. According to the court case Blair v. Western Mutual Benefit Association (1972) as presented by Korkh (2009), it is evident that if there is no communication for an offer, an offer is not said to be in existence.
An Illustration of Acceptance
In Malaysia, there are a number of court cases, which can illustrate acceptance such as Butler Machine Tool Co. v. Ex-cell-O-Corp (1979). Within the court case, it is evident that in a battle of the forms, an individual cannot take advantage of a buyer who offers terms that change the price does unless if the seller's attention is drawn to the price. The court has the obligation of examining all documents to determine if the contract is in existence. According to the case Tywood Industries Ltd v. St. Anne Nackawick Pulp and Paper Co.

Mr Lim enters AlwaysCheap Supermarket and selects some groceries. He then proceeds to select a toaster oven. There’s a sign beside the toaster that says, “Items are for display purposes only”. Mr Lim...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment