Advise Mary Jane and Madeleine on their rights and

liabilities at law, if any under any relevant common

law cases and that of the Malaysian Contracts Act
1950 therein.

Acceptance
sec 2(b)

Promise sec
2(c)

contra
ct

Void
contract 2(j)

Offer/Propo
sal sec 2(a)

 First of all, the advertisement of the Poster of Lost & Found is

unilateral contract. It is because the offer make by Freeda with
a statement written on the poster stating that, "RM7,000 for
the safe return of Peter Pan under any conditions.
The key difference between an offer and an invitation to treat
is that an invitation to treat is not made with the intention that
it is immediately open to acceptance by the other person. Use
of the word offer in a statement is not conclusive of the legal
status of the representation; it will depend upon the nature
and intended effect of the statement made. When deciding the
status of any particular representation Courts will have regard
for evidence setting out the precise words or conduct of each
of the parties, and, the background circumstances to the
statements being made. If there is no evidence in this regard,
the court is left to reach its decision without reference to the
intentions of the parties and objectively construe the
statements alleged to determine their legal effect.

 In this situation, Freeda had written on the poster stating that,

"RM7,000 for the safe return of Peter Pan under any conditions.
So, from this advertisement, Freeda had made the offer. It is a
void contract. According to section 2(g) of the Contract Act 1950 a
void contract is an agreement that is not enforceable by law.
Section 24 of the said Act provides that the consideration or
object of an agreement is unlawful if it falls within any of the
subsections of the section. According to section 24, the
consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless: a)it is
forbidden by a law, b)it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it
would defeat any law, c)it is fraudulent, d)it involves or implies
injury to the person or property of another or e)the court regards
it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. This case can be
classified as a Fraud since Freeda has breach the contract. Fraud is
defined in section 17 of the Contracts Act 1950, to conclude
certain acts which are committed with intent to induce another
party to enter into a contract. As a general rule, it may be stated
that wherever a person (Freeda) causes another (Mary Jane and
Mandeleine) to act on a false representation which the maker
himself does not believe to be true, she is said to have committed
a fraud.

 Discharge by breach is where a party fails to

perform their obligations as agreed, they are in
breach of contract. In this case, Freeda has
breach her contract when she offers RM7000
to whom found her cat. Where one of the
parties indicates to the other either by conduct
or in clear terms an intention not to go on with
the contract, the party is said to have
repudiated or renounced the contract. A
refusal to perform a contract when
performance is due would amount discharge.
Like refusal to perform, a party may put an end
to the contract if the other party has disabled

 This case study have same elements with the case of

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Besides it was a mere
declaration of intent than offer.In advance, the
statement referring to the rm 7000 demonstrated intent
in advertisement and not mere puff and It is quite
possible to make an offer to the public. To accept an
offer, a person need only follow the indicated method of
acceptance. If the offerer either expressly or impliedly
intimates in her offer that it will be enough to act
without giving notice of acceptance, performance is
sufficient acceptance without notification and through
advertising, an acceptance is valid according to the
unilateral contracts. It was an unilateral contracts as
there is no requirement that the offeree communicates
an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full
performance which is the ventures to find the cat in any
circumstances as stated in advertisement and impliedly

 Meanwhile there may be some ambiguity in the

wording this was capable of being resolved by
applying a reasonable time limit to ones that founds
the cat which is Mary Jane and Madeleine. Freeda
bargaining for under circumstances for unilateral
contracts with Mary Jane and Madeleine as they
both not realize the acceptance is automated and
the offeree bound to acceptance of both of them as
full performance which is (she would hunt for the
cat after school with her sister Madeleine together
with a group of fifteen boys from her village and
that she paid RM2 for each of the boys for every
day that they go out together. As luck would have
it, on November 7, 2015 and at 3.00 p.m. they
found Peter Pan dirty, hungry and afraid

 So for the advises, Mary Jane and Madeleine

have their rights and liabilities at law. Mary
Jane and Madeleine as a offeree have their
right because Freeda promise to give RM7000
to anyone who are found her cat. The
contract had been breach. So that Mary Jane
and Madeleine can file a summon to Freeda
because it is unlawful contract. Mary Jane and
Madeleine can sue Freeda since she breach
the contract and can brings this case to the
court.