Mgt 101 - Danny's Van Case Study

Main question

In view of the above circumstance, there are some basic issues that include various individuals in purchasing Danny's van. In spite of the fact that the van was sold to Harry toward the end, there is still some last conclusion that should have been address for the greater part of the understandings. A portion of the issues are can Elaine sue Danny for rupture of agreement? , can Fiza accept the van was hers on the off chance that she didn't hear any react from Danny? , what happen to Gary's offer and the time he get the opportunity to choose whether to purchase the van with the first offer from Danny? , additionally does the agreement among Harry and Danny is legitimate? All the inconvenience will be represent on the passage beneath.

At to start with, Danny publicized his van available to be purchased in the Star Newspaper for RM20, 000. Danny promoting is called invitation to treat which implies it is not an offer but rather a kind of preparatory correspondence which goes between the gatherings at the phase of arrangement; this can be upheld with the instance of Majumder v Attorney (1967). According to Section 2(a) Contract Act 1950- ‘when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or 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’. Elaine was the primary individual who makes an offer to acknowledge the invitation to treat by brings a check of RM20, 000 to Danny's house.  According to Section 2(b) Contract Act 1950 – ‘when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his accent thereto, the proposal is said to accepted’. For this situation however there is no acceptance as Danny denies Elaine offer and she wants to sue him for breach of contract. Sadly this case does not favour Elaine, in light of the fact that in the event that she needs to sue Danny for break of agreement, there must be an agreement or contract between them. An agreement between at least two gatherings is constituted by a proposal and an acceptance. In spite of the fact that she acknowledges the offer from Danny yet Danny did not consent to pitch his van to her. Thus, there is no agreement among them and Elaine can't sue Danny.

  On the following day, Danny got another offer made by Fiza. She wrote to Danny encasing a check for RM20, 000 and saying that she ought to expect that the van was hers unless she heard in actuality. For this case, the suspicion is not substantial, according to Section 3 Contract Act 1950 ‘the communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting, or revoking, by which he intends to communicate the proposal, acceptance, or revocation, or which has the effect of communicating it’, thus silent doesn’t amount to acceptance and also according to Section 4(2)(b) Contract Act 1950 ‘communication, when complete as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer’. Also in the case of Fraser v Everett (1889) says that. Held, she can't expect the van is hers in the event that she didn't hear any react from Danny.

The third individual that made an offer is Gary. After he assessed the van he made an offer to Danny by saying that he will purchase the van just for Rm18, 000. This offer from Gary is dismisses by Danny and he counter offer Gary's proposition by giving three days’ time span to choose whether to purchase the van or not at the cost of RM20, 000. Prior to the three days’ time frame arrives at an end, Danny consented to acknowledge the offer that was made by Harry, where he purchases the van for RM18, 000 cash and Danny additionally permitted Harry to drive the van away. Danny later informed Gary that he sold van to Harry. For this circumstance, the van is legitimately has a place with Harry on the grounds that inside the three days’ time frame, Danny is permitted to revoke his offer that he made with Gary. According to Section 5(1) Contract Act 1950 ‘ a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards’. The three days’ time frame for Gary to settle on choice was not restricting in light of the fact that there was no consideration had been given for it. Consequently, the van is legitimate for Harry and Danny is permitted to sell his van within the three days’ time frame to others as it was only an option for Danny to keep the offer open for a specific timeframe.

At last, the last offer originates from Harry. The agreement among Danny and Harry is legitimate, in light of the fact that there was an assertion occurs for this circumstance. Danny acknowledges Harry's offer by conceding to RM18, 000 cash. Danny is permitted to acknowledge the offer despite the fact that the measure of the thought is lesser that the first sum that he needed. This is on the grounds that as per Malaysian law, the considerations require not to be satisfactory. This is explained in Explanation 2 to Section 26 Contract Act 1950- ‘An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given’, and Illustration (f) to Section 26 Contract Act 1950 shows the application of the rule; - “A agrees to sell a horse worth $1000 for $10. A’s consent to the agreement was freely given the agreement is a contract notwithstanding the inadequacy for the consideration.”  Furthermore this issue of adequacy of consideration was dealt with by the Federal Court in Phang Swee Kin v Beh I Hock (1964) – the respondent consented to pitch to the appealing party a land for RM500 despite the fact that the land was worth more. The respondent later declined to respect the guarantee manage that the guarantee was enforceable. Held the agreement was substantial despite the fact that consideration was inadequate. Along these lines, there is agreement and the contract is substantial between them likewise Harry is permitted to push the van away.