п»їHAZLI AND SHAHREEN
1) The second client that would love to buy the flower vase.
2) He willing to pay RM400 for it.
3) Hazli replied that he would accept RM450. On his quest home, Shahreen realized that RM450 is a good value. After that, he immediately wrote to Hazli to buy the vase. 4) Whether Hazli, the seller of the vase, is acknowledge or certainly not the contract by Shahreen.
In this case, the relevant law is the counter give. At first, Shahreen would like to purchase it for RM400 but Hazli would not accept for this price. He'd accept intended for RM450 selling price. On quest home, Shahreen agree with the cost and published the letter to Hazli. In this case based upon case: Hyde v Wrench tool ( 1940) 3 Bench 334. Summer 6
Accused offered to sell off his farm building to the individual for you, 000 June 8
Plaintif made a counter give of 950 but accused refused to trade. June twenty seven
Plaintiff had written again providing to shell out 1, 000. The defendant refused plus the plaintif sued for specific performance.
Organization Law ( LAW 3235 ), Prepared by Azza Isma Moideen, International Islamic School.
Shahreen make a counter present.
HAZLI AND EMAIL
1) The first customer that will like to buy the vase.
2) Mail walked past the shop and would like to own it. Unfortunately, he was late to get an important appointment. 3) As soon his meeting was completed, he had written the letter and uniting to buy the vase. 4) Whether Hazli, the supplier of the flower vase, is agree to or never to the arrangement by Snail mail.
In this case, the relevant law is a display of goods in and invitation to take care of. Hazli put the vase to be display of goods.
This case, based on case:
Fisher v. Bell ( 1961) 1 QB 394 LOS ANGELES )
Fisher was giving for a flick-knife. He put the knife for display of goods and invite to treat. In line with the ordinary law of agreement the display of an document with a value on it a store window is only an request to treat.
Business Regulation ( RULES 3235 ), Prepared by Azza Isma Moideen, International Islamic College.
Theres no binding deal between them.
HAZLI AND MALA
1) The third customer that would like to buy the vase.
2) She just arrived before the shop closing, and offered RM400 for that price. 3) At this point, Hazli consented to sell the vase with the price that offered. 4) Mala guaranteed to return this Monday while using money. 5) Whether Hazli, the supplier of the vase, accept the
In this case, the relevant rules is the conversation of approval. Mala presented RM400 to get the vase and agreed by Hazli on time. The got dealing the communication of acceptance. Mala have the binding contract with Hazli.
This case based on:
Section 4(2) (a) of the Contracts Take action 1950.
Hazli recognized the presented from Equivoca.
Based on this situatio, Mail and Shahreen don't have any binding contract with Hazli. The right individual that are legal to have the flower vase is Equivoca. Mala possess a conversation acceptance between her and Hazli which is the seller of the classic vase. Mala presented the flower vase for RM400. At that time, Hazli have agreed for that price. Mala assurance to Hazli that she could return pay on the pursuing Monday. Therefore there have got a binding contract together. Assuming the existence of consideration and an goal on the part of the parties with full ability to contract to enter into legal relations a contract comes into being for the offer is usually accepted.
TABLE OF CONTENT MATERIAL
Content of Issues
2, 3, 4
SCHOOL OF ADMINISTRATION
Business Regulation ( RULES 3235 )
NurSyahirah Bt Che Othman ( DMS131077)
Lediglich Farhana Bt HajaKamal ( DMS131076)
Muhd Qayyum Ilham B. Mohd...
Organization Law, ( LAW 3235), prepared by Azza Isma Moideen, ( Manual for Internal Circulation Only)