Problem Question

In the tutorial class, we formed a group of 4 to discuss and answer the question below.

Problem question

2. Due to a rampant robbery in which the robbers used ski masks to cover their faces, the Cyberjaya Authority issued a regulation that makes it illegal to sell ski masks. as a safety measure, the rule also makes it illegal for anyone to offer for sale the ski masks. In spite of this, Messy has not cleared the ski masks from the shelves of his sport equipment shop in Cyberia. The authority officials came to know about this and later on charged Messy under the new regulation. Advise Messy according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided case(s).

Answer:
In this case, it is just an invitation to treat. Since the ski masks are prohibited from selling in Cyberjaya but Messy still displaying this product at the shelves. This creates an invitation to make the offer, which is invitation to treat.

The case we could use here is Fisher v. Bell. The defendant displayed flick knives in his shop windows. He was then convicted of a criminal offence of offering such knives for sale. Display of any goods with a price tag on it in a shop window was not an offer but rather it was an invitation to treat.

Harvey vs Pacey

Lecturer gave an example about legally binding contract in tutorial class. Lets just post it here. Here’s the situation.

Pacey is a seller, Harvey is a prospective buyer. Harvey sent a telegram to pacey about certain items he’s selling. How much you sell for the pens? B replied $XXX… the dispute arose when mr. pacey didn’t want to sell it. Is it a legally binding contract?

Answer:
No legally binding contract. because Harvey is only asking question. there’s no valid agreement of offer and acceptance. pacey is just answering harvey’s question. Mr. Harvey is making offer but there’s no acceptance.

Interesting case

We were asked to solve this case in class few weeks ago. Though I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable in solving such case yet, this is what i got from some small research.

First Case:

Answer:
Ryan is liable under Civil law. Civil laws seek to prevent disputes between individuals, organizations, or governments, in which no criminal laws have been broken.

In this case, Ryan can settle with the victim by compensating him the damages or loss to avoid matter from bringing to court.

The walking pedestrian can claim for damages from Ryan under tort law. Ryan is a driver and he has the responsibility to be careful and care for the pedestrian on the road.

Second Case:


Answer:
Geena’s liability is criminal and she’ll be charged under criminal law.

This is definitely a cheating as she has deliberately cheat others’  money by inducing them to deposit their money to her account. She has violated Section 415 of Penal Code – Cheating.

Apart from that, she held a fake passport too and for this, she violated Immigration Act 1959.

The reason behind this blog

This blog is specially created to share my opinion about anything that is related to business law. We were encouraged by Mr. Sonny Zulhuda, my ‘Business Law’ Lecturer to create this site to learn sharing about law.