QUESTION 1

All contractual agreements in Malaysia are governed by the Contract Act 1950, which contains
provisions on elements of contract, like offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity. In this
case, the involving parties are Ee Teck, Ang Sa, and Pan Da. The topics included are acceptance
and revocation of contract.
Issue 1
Whether Ang Sas acceptance is completed against Ee Teck?
Rules
Contracts Act 1950
s3
s 2(b)
The Ka Wah Bank Ltd v Nadinusa Sdn Bhd & Anor
s 4(2)(a)
Analysis
From s 3 of the Contract Act 1950, an acceptance is conveys through the effect of
communicating. In addition to s 2(b) and The Kah Bank Ltd v Nadinusa Sdn Bhd & Anor
provided that an acceptance is made through the signifying of assent. In turn, Ang Sa
communicated a letter to Ee Teck, signifying his assent of acceptance. In addition, under s 4(2)
(a), the communication of acceptance is completed against Ee Teck, which was put in the course
of transmission by 06/01/2015, out of the power of Ang Sa. Thus, the contract between Ee Teck
and Ang Sa was already formed by 06/01/2015, earlier than the time when Ee Teck intend to
accept Pan Das proposal, which was 08/01/2015.
Issue 2
Whether Ee Teck can revoke his acceptance to Pan Da who was already dead?
Rules
Contracts Act 1950
s 4(2)
s 5(2)
s 6(d)

Dickinson v Dodds
Analysis
Under s 5(2), Ee Teck could revoke his acceptance to Pan Da, since before his communication of
acceptance is completed by 08/01/2015, Pan Da was already dead by 07/01/2013. As such, s 4(2)
on the communication of an acceptance could not be fulfilled with Pan Das death. Furthermore,
s 6(d) and Dickinson v Dodds provided the death of Pan Da would revoke the contract, as since
Ee Teck knows of Pan Das death before the acceptance of contract was ever completed.
Conclusion
Ee Teck has formed a contract with Ang Sa through the latter communication of acceptance
being completed, and he could revoke his acceptance to Pan Da, since Pan Da is already dead.

QUESTION 2
Issue 1
Whether Tumbuk could refuse to execute the contract made when he was intoxicated?
Rules
Contracts Act 1950
s 10(1)
s 11
s 12(1)
s 12(3)
Che Som Binte v Maha Private Limited & 2
Analysis
First, s 10(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 stated that being competent to contract is a requirement
for an agreement to be a contract. In continuation, s 11 provided that for the definition of a
person competent to contract, which included of sound mind. Under s 12 which define sound
mind, Tumbuk would not be able to understand and form a rational judgement regarding his
interest on his agreement with Gaduh, since such mental capability was highly affected by
Tumbuhs intoxication. Additionally under s 12(3) and illustration (b), Tumbuk could not make a
contract when he was intoxicated, which is under the category of unsound mind. Che Som Binte
v Maha Private Limited & 2 also provides for the contract to be voidable with Tumbuk being of

unsound mind during that period. Thereby, as Tumbuk was not competent to contract when he
was intoxicated, the agreement between him and Gaduh could not be consider as a contract and
is voidable.
Conclusion
Tumbuk could afford to refuse honoring his agreement with Gaduh, since it was made when
Tumbuk was of unsound mind and voidable.

QUESTION 3
Sasuke borrowed RM 5,000 from Kabuto before he went on a business trip to London. He also
requested Kabuto to look after the house during his absence. One day, while cleaning Sasukes
house, Kabuto found a notice from the Income Tax Department requiring Sasuke to pay
RM2,000 within a week and failure to do so would entail fine or prosecution. Kabuto paid the
income tax on Sasukes behalf using his own money. When Sasuke returned home, he promised
Kabuto to repay the sum advanced by him. 7 years later, Kabuto realized that Sasuke have yet
made any repayment. He asked Sasuke to execute a written agreement for the repayment of his
debt.
Advise Kabuto as to his legal position against Sasuke under the Contracts Act 1950. Support
your answer with relevant authorities.
Issue 1
Whether having no consideration would affect Kabutos agreement with Sasuke?
Rules
s 10(1)
s 2(e)
s 26b
Guthrie Waugh Bhd v Malaiappan Muthuchumaru
Analysis

QUESTION 4
Samy who had a second-hand Fiat 1975 car went to Robert a car dealer, with a view to effecting
a change as the car gave a lot of trouble. Robert showed a list of the second-hand cars to Samy
and recommended a Toyota Corolla 1975 which he said was in a tip-top condition and a better
car than other cars. After a trial run Samy was shown the registration book of the car. At the top
of the car appeared the words Late BBT 6570. Robert verified that the car was registered as
1975 model. Samy used the car for two months and wanted to sell it as he had to go to England
for higher studies. The prospective buyer looked to the engine of the car and noticed that the
chassis number was one which belonged to the year 1970. As a matter of fact the car was a 1970
model. Samy wants to repudiate the contract and get back the money he has paid for the purchase
of the car. He also wants to claim damages from Robert.
Advise Samy.
Issue 1
Whether Roberts statement regarding the car model is a representation or term?
Rules
Routledge v McKay
Bannerman v White
Routledge v McKay
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
Analysis
Issue 2
Whether the term regarding the car model is a condition or warranty?
Rules
Sale of Goods Act 1957
S2
S3
Poussard v Spiers and Pond