Legislative process (by Parliament) (top)
| Initiation | -copies of BILL circulated to Parliament members |
| 1st reading | -name of the BILL and date for 2nd reading |
| 2nd reading | -general principles of bills subject to extensive debate. Require majority 2/3 for approval. |
| Committee stage | -bill is passed to committee whose job consider the bill in details, clause by clause |
| Report stage | -standing committee reports bill back to House for any amendments made during committee stage |
| 3rd reading | -debate only restricted to matters relating to the content of the bill but not its principles eg spelling mistake |
| Passing of the law | -Royal Assent of Queen / Sultan must pass the law |
| Gazette | -published in the government official Gazette and notification of the new law enforcement |
After a BILL has passed all these stages in the House of Commons (Dewan Rakyat), it is passed to House of Lords (Dewan Senat) with the same process for further debate
Blocking power of House of Lords has been restricted to
'money bills' - financial provisions, can be enacted without approval for House of Lords after 1 month delay
any other bill can be delayed by House of Lords for 1 year
Delegated legislation (subordinated , subsidiary legislation) (top)
Statutory interpretation (top)
Rule governing OFFER (proposal) (top)
Rule governing ACCEPTANCE (top)
General rules
acceptance can be made either express or implied
silence do not means acceptance !!!
acceptance made should be unconditional - no extra condition / requisite made
acceptance should be unqualified - means no counter offer
postal rule of acceptance (acceptance through post)
time and date of posting would be taken as acceptance date and not receiving time of receiver
revocation (cancellation) of acceptance is not possible
time duration of acceptance - reasonable unless its fixed
Rule governing CONSIDERATION (top)
General rule
consideration must come from the promisee.
Doctrine of privity of contract (top)
Example of related case law (top)
| Characteristic / Rule | Description | Cases | Outcome |
| clearly stated terms | - statement too vague to create a valid offer | Guthing v Lynn (1831) | The buyer of a horse promised to pay the seller an extra 5 pounds 'if the horse is lucky for me'. It was held this was too vague to be enforceable |
| - unless there is an arbitration clauses | Foley v Classique Coaches (1934,CA) | Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause to supply petrol to coach company ' at a price be agreed in writing and from time to time' would enable any lack of clarity to be resolved as necessary | |
| differs from 'invitation to treat' | - 'cheap offer',
statement advertising goods are not offer
- Customer make offer when they prepared to do business at the price shown on window display. If seller accept, then it resulted in a contract |
Fisher v Bell (1961,CA) | Court of Appeal held that the goods (flick-knife) in a shop window, even those bearing a price tag, represent invitation to treat not an offer. |
| Pharmaceutical Society (GB) v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern)
Ltd
Medicine ( which needs supervision of medical assistant) was displayed on the shelf in a self-service shop |
The display goods was
an 'invitation to treat'
Customer makes offer only when presenting the goods at the check-out /counter | ||
| differs form giving 'information' | - Asking/ providing for information do not meant to offer | Harvey v
Facey (1893)
After being asked by Harvey the lowest price of the sale of a land through telegram, Facey replied with a mere statement of price. |
Harvey thought it was
an offer but it was not.
Facey only provide info and no intention to sell his land |
| must communicated to the offeree | - Offeree must have the knowledge of the offer | Carlill
v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893)
Carbolic Company advertised to the public that it will pay S1000 to anyone who caught influenza from using its product. After using it and still get influenza, Carlill sued the company |
Court of Appeal held
that the advertisement was a unilateral offer
by Carbolic. It would be accepted by anyone who knew it. Thus, Carlill won
her case.
Besides, there exist definite 'consideration' of $1000 |
| Bloom v
Swiss Watch Company (1915)
Swiss Company advertised reward for anyone supplying correct information leading to the arrest of jewel thieves Bloom only knew the Swiss offer after providing the info. |
Court of Appeal held that the Swiss company not obliged to pay Bloom. | ||
| Termination of offer | a) Refusal or
b) Counter offer (indirect rejection) - Offeree make a new term which automatically ended the original offer. |
Hyde v
Wrench (1840)
Wrench offered to sell his land for $1000. Hyde said that he will pay only $950 and the balance $50 other day. After no response from Wrench, Hyde willing to pay the original offer of $1000 |
It was held there
exists counter-offer from Hyde of $950. It automatically cancelled the
original offer $1000
Hyde could not revive the original offer of $1000 unless Wrench re-make the offer again !! |
| Lapse of time | Offer will vanish if not accepted within any specified / reasonable time | Ramsgate
Hotel v Montefiore (1866)
Montefiore offered to buy hotel shares in June. He heard nothing more until November, the company informed him that the shares were his. |
It was held the company's delay resulted the lapse of Montefiore offer. Thus, no contract exist. |
| Revocation | Offeror can cancel
/revocate its own offer before it was accepted. But it must be convey to
the offeree either
a) directly OR b) authorised person |
Dickinson v Dodds (1876,CA)
Dodds offer to sell his property to Dickinson. Dodds sold it to 3rd party before Dickinson responded. |
The 3rd party best
friend informed Dickinson of the sale to 3rd party.
It was held to be adequate notice even the informant did not act on Dodds (offeror) instruction. |
| Characteristic / Rule | Description | Cases | Outcome |
| Acceptance must be communicated to offeror by offeree himself or authorized agent | - Offeror must know the offer was accepted | Powell v
Lee (1908)
Powell applied for the job of headmaster Someone (who was not authorized by board of members) told Powell that Powell got his job Then, board of members appoint another person to hold the job |
Powell failed in his
action for breach of contract
There is not valid acceptance, thus no contract |
| Silence do not mean acceptance | - Offeror cannot push offeree that being silence means to accept | Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
By telegram, Felthouse offered to buy horse from his nephew and stated that 'if I hear no more, I consider it mine' His nephew did not respond but accidentally sold his horse in an auction |
It was held no
contract exist between Felthouse and his nephew.
|
| Postal communication
rule (include telegram)
- do not apply to instantaneous communications (telex, telephone, facsimile, e-mail) |
- Date of offer is
defined when only the offeree received the offer letter
-Date of acceptance is defined when the acceptance letter is posted and not the time the offeror received it. |
Byrne v
Van Tienhoven (1880)
Oct 1 : Tienhoven posted offer letter to Byrne Oct 8: Tienhoven changed his mind, posted revocation letter Oct 11: Offer letter arrived. Byrne send his acceptance by telegram Oct 15: Byrne posted second acceptance, this time by post Oct 20: Byrne received revocation letter |
Date of offer : Oct
11
Date of acceptance : Oct 11 (telegram) Revocation was too late and ineffective. To be effective, it should reached before Oct 11 |
| -can avoid this postal rules by specifying not be bound until receipt of an acceptance letter | Holwell
Securities v Hughes (1974)
The offeror stated that they must receive acceptance by 'notice in writing' Holwell posted the acceptance letter before deadline. Letter arrived at the offeror after the deadline |
Because of the term
'notice in writing', there is no contract although posted before
deadline.
Because of the term too, the postal rule of acceptance can be avoided by offeror thus can 'save' the offeror from lawsuit. | |
| Acceptance must be unqualified | No exist of counter-offer | A offer B his car for
$4500.
B accepts but can only make 3 instalments of $1500 |
This is a qualified
acceptance
Regarded as counter-offer |
| Acceptance once given cannot be revoked (cancelled) | |||
| Acceptance must take place within the prescribed time / reasonable time | |||
| Characteristic / Rule | Description | Cases | Outcome |
| Consideration must not be past
|
- a promise
to pay must precede the act
if not, the promise will be merely gratuitous |
Roscorla v Thomas (1842)
Roscorla bought a horse from Thomas After contract was over, Thomas promised that the horse sound and free from vice Later, horse become vice and Roscorla sued for breach of contract |
Promise was
made after contract.
No consideration was made for the promise. Roscorla failed because it was a past consideration. No new contract was created. |
| Consideration can be an | a) executory / future consideration - Contract formed by exchange of promises which will be carried out at a later day. | Eg: payment and transfer of bicycle were to take place next week after the contract is made today | |
| b) executed / present consideration - the promise or act is performed when contract is made. | Eg: someone advertise reward for safe return of a lost cat. The promise to pay is a binding performance of an act of returning the cat. The person who returns the cat is called 'executed consideration'. | ||
| Consideration must be definite, not vague | Shield v Drysdale (1880)
A daughter was promised by father 'some' of his property if she look after her parents |
Agreement
was void
Consideration of 'some' was vague | |
| Consideration must be of some value (sufficient) but need not adequate | -usually monetary value but other material also can | Thomas v Thomas (1842)
A widow was promised a house in return for a ground rent and promising to keep the property in good repair. Annual rent of $1 was imposed. |
$1 was held sufficient consideration for the promise |
| Chappell v Nestle (1960)
A promotion by Nestle offered pop music recordings for a sum of money plus 3 chocolate wrappers |
It was held the chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration | ||
| A person already obliged cannot rely on the same act to form a new contract | -the act is an insufficient consideration to support a contract | Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Sailors were bound to contract of a ship voyage 2 sailors deserted the ship during the course Captain promised that the wages for the deserted sailors would be distributed among the faithful remainder sailors Upon voyage completion, captain denied giving the extra money |
The captain
had the right to do so
The sailors were already obliged to do pursuant to their contract |
| Collins v Godefroy (1831)
Godefroy promised to pay Collins if Collins become a key witness. |
Godefroy
promise was not contractual binding.
Collins should give witness testimony in court even if not paid because it was a LEGAL DUTY to do so | ||
| Consideration must move from the promisee (offeror) | Offeror owns
the object thus should decide the amount of consideration (money value) to
the offeree.
Promisor (offeree) make promise to pay that amount to promisee (offeror) |
||
| Consideration must be capable of performance | A agrees to give B a car if B can fly | ||
| Consideration must no be illegal or unlawful | A pay B money to do robbery | ||
| Pinnel's Case
(1602)
(top)
Part payment of a debt will not be adequate consideration to discharge a debt |
Ali owed
Ahmad $50
Ali can only pay $35 when the repayment date arrives although Ahmad agreed to receive $35 in full settlement.
|
Legal
logic:
Ali only pay $35 and obtain benefit of $15 from Ahmad but gives nothing in return Ahmad loses $15 from their agreement Ali provides no consideration and so Ahmad new promise (to accept in full satisfaction) is not contractually binding; merely a gratuitous promise. So, if Ahmad would claim $50 from Ali next time, Ali cannot sue Ahmad
| |
| Promissory
estoppel
(top)
- equitable defense which may be relevant in part-payment situation - defense against Pinnel's code - only applicable if the act of breaking the gratuitous promise is very unfair and irrelevant |
Parties who gratuitously promise that they will not enforce existing contractual rights may lose their entitlement to do so if it would be unfair to allow them to go back on their promise; they are prevented (estoppel) from breaking the promise | Central London Property Trust (CLPT) v High Tree House (HTH)
(1947)
CLPT leased some flats to HTH Because of war, HTH failed to rent out the flats. HTH cannot afford to pay the leasing fee to CLPT CLPT promised to reduce the fees during the war. After the war, CLPT wanted to claim back the full leasing fees during the war period from HTH
|
CLPT was not
entitled to claim the full leasing fees.
It is unfair to go back and break the promise given by CLPT based on the circumstances |
| Privity of
contract
(top)
- only parties involved can sue each other |
Parties who have not contributed consideration to a contract cannot usually sue on it if it is breached. | Tweddle v Atkinson (1861)
Tweddle engaged to Atkinson's daughter. Tweddle's father and Atkinson contracted they would each put money for their children's marriage Atkinson died before making payment Tweddle wanted to sue Atkinson (his deceased father in law) estate for money |
Tweddle
failed in his quest.
Contract was made between Tweedle's father and Atkinson Tweedle not involved in the contract |
| Dunlop Rubber Co.Ltd v Selfridge (1915)
Dunlop supplied tyres at a discount to Dew Co Dew Co. promised Dunlop that Dew only sold to traders who agreed not to resell below list price Dew supplied Selfridge who breached the resale price agreement. Dunlop took action against Selfridge
|
Dunlop
cannot sue Selfridge
No privity of contract between Dunlop and Selfridge Dunlop had given no consideration to Selfridge in return fro the promise to stick to resale price (Action can only be taken by Dew against Selfridge) | ||
| Upper court
-appellate jurisdiction only |
House of Lords | ||
|
Ý |
|||
| Court of Appeal | |||
| Ý | |||
| Lower court
-appellate and original jurisdiction |
High Court | > $ 50,000 | |
| Ý | - cases which involve $25,000 - $30,000 will be decided either in High or County County based on complexity | ||
| County Court | $3,000-$25,000 |
- divided into
- contain Small Claims Court which handle < $3,000 |
| Upper court
-appellate jurisdiction only |
House of Lords |
- High Court is under the Upper court !! | |
|
Ý |
|||
| Court of Appeal | |||
| Ý | |||
| High Court | |||
| Ý | |||
| Lower court
-appellate and original jurisdiction |
Crown court | - handle indictable (cognizable) offences eg: murder, rape (more serous) | |
| Ý | |||
| Magistrate court | - handle summary (inferior) cases which has < 1 year imprisonment (less seroius cases) |
- divided into
|
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}