1. 1st Exercise. Thursday / 15th December 2016
Group's Name : IRISS
Past Semester Question SEPT 2013. Question 1 (b)
The issue in this case is whether Yuzai could claim the reward of RM 10,000 offered by Strong
Kim.
According to Section 2 (a) of the Contracts Act 1950, is said one person signifies to another
person willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, to get assent from offeree. In the
problem, Strong Kim make an offer to the public through an advertisement about the reward in
the sum of RM 10,000 for the return of the jade bracelet. The offer was made to the general
public, so anyone can accept it as long as he or she fullfilled all the conditions similar to the case
of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Based on the case, Mrs. Carlill having bought and used the
smoke ball but still had influenza, claimed £100 from the company. The company argued that the
advertisement does not amount to an offer which could turn into a contract by acceptance. The
court held that the statement in the advertisement created a binding obligation. It was an offer
addressed to the public at large which could be accepted by anyone who fulfills the conditions
attached to the offer.
According to Section 2 (b) of the Contracts Act 1950, when the offeree signifies his assent
thereto- the proposal is said to be accepted. For example, if Yuzai indicates his assent to return
jade bracelet at Strong Kim, then there is an acceptance to the offer made by Strong Kim. As a
result, an agreement is concluded between Strong Kim and Yuzai. Now Strong Kim can be
called the promisor and Yuzai is called the promisee.
The problem also refers to general rule is that advertisements in newspaper or periodicals or
television commercial are not offers but an invitation to treat. When the person who reads the
advertisement responds with the offer, it is entirely up to the advertiser whether to accept or
reject the offer made. A contract would only be created, if the advertiser accepts the offer made
2. by the public. This case similar to Harris v Nickerson, the plaintiff brought an action to claim
damages and alleged that the Defendant had breached the contract since the advertisement was
an offer and his presence at the sale was an acceptance to the offer. The Court rejected his claim
and held that the advertisement was merely an invitation to treat.
According to Section 4 (1), the communication of the proposal is complete when it comes to
knowledge of the person to whom it is made. This mean that the acceptor needs to have
knowledge of the proposal when he makes the acceptance. Strong Kim had made an
advertisement about the reward but Yuzai did not have the knowledge about it. This similar to
the Australian case of R v Clarke. in this case the court held that Clarke was not entitled to the
reward of £1000 offered because at the time he gave the information, he did not have knowledge
of the existence of the reward offered. It means that no agreement exist because there is no
communication of proposal. This case is different from the case of William v Carwadine, where
the plaintiff give information which led to arrest of the murderer with full knowledge of the
reward. it was held that he entitled to claim the reward as the offer was already communicated
when he gave the information.
In Yuzai's case, it is clear that when Strong Kim had advertised a reward in the sum of
RM10,000 for the return of the jade bracelet, Yuzai cannot claim the reward from Strong Kim as
he did not have the knowledge about the reward.
