Maju Jaya Supermarket (MJ Supermarket) Essay

Maju Jaya Super securities industry (MJ Supermarket) advertises in the newspapers that at that place is a va break throughhousecy for the bet of manager. The advertizement verbalise thatthose who argon raise tail assembly herald either cartridge holder to MJ Supermarket for an interview from 11th April 2014 until twenty-first April 2014. Ahmad who was truly interested with the post came to MJ Supermarket on twentieth April 2014 and was in functi superstard by the owner that the post was already filled. Ahmad was very angry as he has already tendered his resignation to his precedent comp both. On the day that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket, he hitch Mr Chan, his neighbour, entering the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned food, shampoo, pelt and vegetables. He put all the items into his trolley. However, composition he was still looking for early(a) items, Mr Chan received a call from his boy asking him to pick him up from the determine station. Mr Chan left the items in the trolley and went by from the MJ Supermarket. Advise Ahmad and Mr Chan whether there is any rationalise amidst them and the MJ Supermarket. (20 MARKS)ANSWER to Part A (Ahmad Case)IntroductionThe definition given low the segment 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 is that a hold is an agreement enforceable by integrity (The Commissioner of Law Revision, 2006). Therefore in the Ahmads wooing, one of the parties (Ahamd or MJ Supermarket) has to make an abide that is duly legitimate by the early(a). tele surround numberFirst burden that we need trade in this courting is to see whether the advertising stating the interview deadlines contains an put out. If it does, can Ahmads willingness to meet the interview be considered as an credence of the post? In gaffe the publicizing is non considered as an bye, or if it is equitable an invitation to treat, then there is no below conduct betwixt them. Second issue embossed by the question is whether Ahmads str awman in the MJ Supermarket to attend the interview on time, after his resignation from his previous job, is an offer. In that case, does MJ Supermarket can reject Ahmads offer? ground on the limited breeding given in the Ahmads case, the issues were analysed to see whether there is a start between both parties?The Law fit in to division 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, an offer exists when one soul signifies to anformer(a) his willingness to do or to terminate from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is tell to make a project (Rahman , 2011). As given in the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke wrap Co Ltd (1893) 1 QB 256 case, a aim or an offer can excessively be make to the general habitual to be accepted by any per intelligence who knows about it and willing to make out the requirements of the proposer. On the other hand, an invitation to treat can be defined as bragging(a) information or requests to others to make o ffers. employment of the Law to the Facts of the conundrumThe advertizing by the MJ Supermarket all the way states that those who are interested can come after anytime to MJ Supermarket for an interview from 11th April 2014 until 21st April 2014. This raise the question whether the advertisement is mean to bound in conduct with the participants who come for the interview. In case of COELHO v. THE PUBLIC operate COMMISSION1964 M.L.J.12, the applicant, a Health Inspector at a lower place the Town Board, Tanjong Malim, applied for the post of friend Passport Officer in the partnership of Malaya Government Oversea Missions advertised in the Malay Mail dated 19 February 1957. Consequently, the applicant was informed that he was accepted and, after on a lower floorgoing look ating, he was posted to the in-migration Office, Kuala Lumpur, where he remained until December 1958 when he was transferred to the in-migration Office at Johor Bahru (Rahman , 2011).The High greet ruled th at the newspaper advertisement was an invitation for pendent persons to apply and the applications were treated as offers. equal can be expressed to the case of Ahmad that the newspaper advertisement by the MJ Supermarket is an invitation to those who are interested to introduce in the interview. In the case of Gibson v Manchester CC 1979 1 alone ER 972, HL local council write to tenants inviting them to apply to leveraging their homes. virtuoso such tenant P did apply, and a price was agreed. Following a lurch of party control, the new council DD refused to go forwardhand with the sale. The House of Lords said there was no binding digest P had made an offer which DD had not yet accepted. Phrases in the correspondence such as may be prepared to sell and enthral everlasting(a) the enclosed application form were indicative of an invitation to treat (ThomsonReuters, 2004). Similarly to this case, the advertisement by the MJ supermarket stated that those who are interested c an come any time to the interview is crucial to consider that the advertisement was a step in the duologue for a contract. cobblers lastConsidering the court rule on both Coelhos case and Gibsons case, the advertisement made in the newspaper was an invitation to treat. However, the presence of Ahmad to participate in the interview is considered as an offer. The MJ Supermarket spurned this offer. Therefore the advice to Ahmad is that there is no contract between himself and the MJ Supermarket.ANSWER to Part B (Ahmad Case)On the day that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket, he saying Mr Chan, his neighbour, entering the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned food, shampoo, bollock and vegetables. He put all the items into his trolley. However, term he was still looking for other items, Mr Chan received a call from his son asking him to pick him up from the train station. Mr Chan left the items in the trolley and went out from the MJ Supermarket.IntroductionThe definition given und er the Section 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 is that a contract is an agreement enforceable by impartiality (The Commissioner of Law Revision, 2006). In the case of Chan, there should be an offer made by Chan and this offer should be accepted by the MJ Supermarket to make a contract.IssueThe issue raised in the question is whether the Mr Chans action of taking goods from super market racks and put it into the basket contains an offer or an acceptance of an offer. Does he or MJ Supermarket effectuate the requirements of a contract?The LawAccording to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, an offer exists when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. An invitation to treat can bedefined as giving information or requests to others to make offers. In the Contracts Act 1950, Section 4(1) states that the colloquy of a proposal is fill out when the proposal comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. To effect the pre-conditions of a contract, the proposal should be clearly communicated to the acceptor. Under Section 5(1) of the Contracts Act 1950, a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, moreover not afterwards.Application of the Law to the Facts of the ProblemMr Chan took goods by himself suggests that there is a showing of goods in the MJ Supermarket and allows customers to voluntarily pick goods they deal and barter for from the counter. In the case of black cat v Bell 1960 3 All ER 731, DC it was a statutory offence under the Restriction of unsavory Weapons Act 1959 to offer for sale any of various items, including flick-knives. A Bristol shopkeeper R displayed such a knife in his window, with a ticket reading ousting knife 4s. 4 shillings = 20p, and was prosecuted for an offence under the Act. The divisiona l mash took a literal meter reading of the statute and said he had affiliated no offence the display was an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell (Rahman , 2011). In comparison to the Mr Chans scenario, this case can be used to justify an argument of changing mind at any plosive speech sound of purchase before a contract is made. Therefore Mr Chans decision to allow for the goods without procureing is acceptable based on Fishers case.In the case of pharmaceutical Society v Boots 1953 1 All ER 482, CA legitimate products that were to be sold only under the supervision of a registered pharmacist were displayed on shelves in a self-service shop. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (who are trusty for enforcing this legislation) brought a prosecution against the shop for allowing customers to buy these products by helping themselves, but the Court of Appeal (upholding Lord Goddard CJ) said they had no case. The customer having selected the goods made an offer to p urchase when he took them to the cash desk, and there was a registered pharmacist supervising that point at which the sale took place (Rahman , 2011). Mr Chan does not take the goodsto the gross revenue counter. In the case it is also mentioned that he was still looking for goods to purchase. However, he revoked from the operate of making an offer to the sales staff when he got a phone call. As mentioned in the Boots case, the action by Mr Chan indicates that he did not properly complete an offer to purchase. In other words, he was involved in an invitation to treat from the MJ Supermarket.ConclusionTo complete a contract between Mr Chan and MJ Supermarket, there is should clear communication of an offer and acceptance between both parties. Based on the discussed cases above, the display of goods are considered as an invitation to treat. Mr Chan does not complete an offer to purchase the goods as he quit his process of purchasing in the middle before taking goods to the sales coun ter. Futhermore, the MJ Supermarket does not contribute knowledge of a possible offer from Mr Chan.