# data[].attributes.body
Farah Diyanah Binti Abdullah

HM2412A

Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Farah Diyanah Binti Abdullah

HM2412A

Govinda v Harris

# data[].attributes.body
INTAN FAZIRA BINTI MOHD RADZI HO
HM241 2A

HARRIS V GOVINDA

# data[].attributes.body
INTAN FAZIRA BINTI MOHD RADZI HO
HM 241 2A

THAM V BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
NUR ANISHA AZREEN BINTI MOHD NAZI
HM241 2A

THAM V BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
NUR ANISHA AZREEN BINTI MOHD NAZI
HM241 2A

HARRIS V GOVINDA

# data[].attributes.headline
Wan Muhammad Suffian Adli bin Mohamat Zaki HM2453B2

# data[].attributes.subject
Wan Muhammad Suffian Adli bin Mohamat Zaki HM2453B2

# data[].attributes.body
Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.headline
Wan Muhammad Suffian Adli bin Mohamat Zaki HM2453B2

# data[].attributes.subject
Wan Muhammad Suffian Adli bin Mohamat Zaki HM2453B2

# data[].attributes.body
Harris v Govinda

# data[].attributes.body
Harris v Govindq

# data[].attributes.body
Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Harris v Govinda (Part 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Harris v Govinda (Part 1)

# data[].attributes.body
HM241 2A
THAM V BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
HM241/2A
BEE LING V THAM

# data[].attributes.body
NURUL FATIN BINTI MOHD FIZAL
HM241/2A
GOVINDA V HARRIS

# data[].attributes.body
INTAN NUR AZIRA BINTI ABDUL NALIM
HM241/2A

# data[].attributes.body
INTAN NUR AZIRA BINTI ABDUL NALIM
HM241/2A

# data[].attributes.body
SITI NUR AIN BT AZHA
HM241/2A

# data[].attributes.body
SITI NUR AIN BT AZHA
HM241/2A

# data[].attributes.body
NURUL IZZATI BT KHIR JUMLI
HM2412A

# data[].attributes.body
Bee Ling v Tham

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda v Harris

# data[].attributes.body
Fasihah solehin
2017690346
HM2412A
Tham v Bee ling

# data[].attributes.body
Fasihah solehin
2017690346
HM2412A
GOVINDA V HARRIS

# data[].attributes.headline
Amira Nasuha Binti Abd Jamil 2017669556 HM2412A

# data[].attributes.subject
Amira Nasuha Binti Abd Jamil 2017669556 HM2412A

# data[].attributes.body
Part II : Harris V Govinda

# data[].attributes.headline
Amira Nasuha Binti Abd Jamil, 2017669556. HM2412A

# data[].attributes.subject
Amira Nasuha Binti Abd Jamil, 2017669556. HM2412A

# data[].attributes.body
Tham V Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Nurul Nabilah bt Zainol - HM241 2A
HARRIS AND GOVINDA

# data[].attributes.body
THAM AND BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
HARRIS AND GOVINDA

# data[].attributes.body
THAM V BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
HARRIS AND GOVINDA'S CASES

# data[].attributes.body
Wan Nurin Sahira bt Wan Abdul Razak

Tham v Bee Ling
Part 2

# data[].attributes.body
Wan Nurin Sahira bt Wan Abdul Razak

Tham v Bee Ling
Part 1

# data[].attributes.body
Wan Nurin Sahira bt Wan Abdul Razak

Harris v Govinda
Part 2

# data[].attributes.body
Wan Nurin Sahira bt Wan Abdul Razak

Harris v Govinda
Part 1

# data[].attributes.body
SITI NORFARAHIN BINT
 SITI NORFARAHIN BINTI HAMDAN

HM241/2A

HARRIS V GOVINDA
THAM V BEE LING
Tham v Bee Ling
Tham v Bee Ling
Siti Aishah Binti Mohd Nor Ng.
HM241/2A

Issue : Whether there is a contract between Tham and his wife, Bee Ling ?

Law : It is important to show that the parties do intend to enter into a contract. When it is come silent on the issue of intention, there seems no doubt that this is vital requirement. The purpose of determining intention of the parties involved in the agreement 2 presumptions apply namely which are social and domestic arrangement and commercial arrangement. The social and domestic arrangement mean there is a presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relation while the commercial arrangement mean that in commercial agreement there is strong presumption that the parties do intend to create legally binding contract unless otherwise stated.

Application : Applying to the Tham's situation, there is  no contract between Tham and his wife because he make a promise which is he promise to pay Bee Ling a monthly allowance of RM1,000 without any intention to make a contract between them. Based on Balfour v Balfour's case, an agreement made between members of a family in the course of a family life, the law will ordinarily imply from the circumstances of the case that the parties did not intend their agreement to have legal consequences. So, based on the case, we can apply the court decision in the Tham v Bee Ling's case.Therefore, there is no contract between Tham and his wife, Bee Ling.

Conclusion : Therefore, Bee ling cannot sue Tham because there is no valid contract  between them.



Muhammad Hazimi bin
 Muhammad Hazimi bin Mohd Hanafiah 
2017725925 HM2453C1 
Tham v Bee Ling
Muhammad Hazimi bin
 Muhammad Hazimi bin Mohd Hanafiah 
2017725925 HM2453C1 
Govinda v Harris 
Tham v Bee Ling
Tham v Bee Ling
 Siti Khalilah binti Abdul Jalil
 HM2453B2
Harris v Govinda
Harris v Govinda
 Siti khalilah binti abdul jalil
 HM245B
Tham Vs Bee Ling
Tham Vs Bee Ling
Shaffrin Ameer Rosalizi HM2453 C1
Tham Vs Bee Ling
Tham Vs Bee Ling
Ahmad Safwan Aqil Bin Ahmad Padzir (HM2453C1)
Govinda Vs Harris
Govinda Vs Harris 
Ahmad Safwan Aqil Bin Ahmad Padzir (HM2453C1)
Govinda Vs Harris
Govinda Vs Harris
Shaffrin Ameer Rosalizi HM2453 C1
Tham V Bee Ling
Tham V Bee Ling
Muhammad bin mazlan hm245/3c2
Harris V Govindha
Harris V Govindha
Muhammad bin mazlan Hm 245/3c2
Harris V Govindha
Harris V Govindha
Ahmad Omar Iqram B Ramli 
HM 245 3C1
Tham v Bee Ling
Tham v Bee Ling
Ahmad Omar Iqram B Ramli 
HM 245 3C1
Tham V Bee Ling
Tham V Bee Ling
Nabila Atikah binti Mohd Nazeri
HM2453C2
Harris V Govinda
Harris V Govinda
Nabila Atikah binti Mohd Nazeri
HM2453C2
Adib Akram Bin Moham
 Adib Akram Bin Mohamad
HM245 3C2
Govinda V Harris
Adib akram bin moham
 Adib akram bin mohamad
HM245 3C2
Tham V Bee Ling 
Azwan Faris Bin Azli
 Azwan Faris Bin Azli
HM2453C2
Tham V Bee Ling
Azwan Faris Bin Azli
 Azwan Faris Bin Azli
HM2453C2
Govinda V Haris
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman
Tham vs Bee Ling conclusion
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman(HM2453B2
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman(HM2453B2
Tham vs bee ling
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman
Harris vs Govinda conclusion
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman(HM2453B2)
Nor Syahada Bt Abd Rahman(HM2453B2)
HARRIS VS GONVINDA
Adam Aiman Bin Othaman (HM2453C2)
Adam Aiman Bin Othaman (HM2453C2)
Tham V Bee Ling
Adam Aiman Bin Othaman (HM2453C2)
Adam Aiman Bin Othaman (HM2453C2)
Govinda and Haris
HUSNA AYUMI BINTI SHAHRIL HAMKA(HM2412A)
HUSNA AYUMI BINTI SHAHRIL HAMKA(HM2412A)
BOTH CASE :)
Nur'Aliesha Alia Binti Rashidi
Nur'Aliesha Alia Binti Rashidi 
(HM2412A)
THAM AND BEE LING
Nur'Aliesha Alia Binti Rashidi
Nur'Aliesha Alia Binti Rashidi
(HM2412)
GOVINDA AND HARRIS
NUR SYIFAA AMNAH BT
 NUR SYIFAA AMNAH BT ANNUAR
(HM2412A)
Both tutorial
Azaliya Addinie Binti Ghazali (HM2451C)
Azaliya Addinie Binti Ghazali (HM2451C)
Tham v Bee Ling
Azaliya Addinie Binti Ghazali (HM245C1
Azaliya Addinie Binti Ghazali (HM245C1
Govinda and Harris
Empty
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)
Govinda and Harris

Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)
Tham V Bee Ling
Fatimah Irdina binti
 Fatimah Irdina binti Mohd Hakem (HM2453C1)
Tham v Bee Ling 
Julia Raihan Bt Ja'afar (HM2453C1)
Julia Raihan Bt Ja'afar (HM2453C1)
Tham v Bee Ling case
Fatimah Irdina binti
 Fatimah Irdina binti Mohd Hakem (HM2453C1)
Govinda v Harris 
Julia Raihan Bt Ja'afar (HM2453C1)
Julia Raihan Bt  Ja'afar (HM2453C1)
Govinda v Harris case part 2 
Julia Raihan Bt Ja'afar (HM2453C1
Julia Raihan Bt Ja'afar (HM2453C1
Govinda v Harris case part 1
nur asyiqin bt ahmad razali (hm2453b2)
nur asyiqin bt ahmad razali (hm2453b2)
harris n govinda
Tham and Bee Ling's case
Tham and Bee Ling's case
Nur Atiqah Bt Mohamad
HM2453C1
Govinda and Harris c
 Govinda and Harris case
Nur Atiqah Mohamad
HM2453
T
T
Tengku Khairani Binti Tengku Muhamad Fawzi
Tengku Khairani Binti Tengku Muhamad Fawzi
Nur Amiah Binti Nafiah (HM2453c1)
Nur Amiah Binti Nafiah  (HM2453c1)
Harris and Govinda's cases

 Issue :- Whether there is communication of proposal between Hariss and Govinda?
 
Law :-
Section 2(a) – When a person promises or proposes something to another party with the intention that his promise/ proposal would be accepted by that other party, he is said to make an offer.
Section 4(1)- If  the offeree  does not know about the offer,  the offer itself is not valid. Thus, there be no binding contract.
Section 3- therefore mere intention to accept without communication the acceptance to the offeror does not give rise to valid and binding contract.
Section 4 (2)- the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the to the knowledge of the proposer.
Case:-
R V CLARKE
     The Australian government offered a reward for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons responsible for the murder of 2 police officers.
Mr. X and Mr. Clarke were arrested. Clarke then give information which lead to the arrest of another person  Mr. Y . Both Mr. X and Mr. Y were later convicted for the offence and Clarke who was not guilty was release. Clarke later heard about the reward and claimed it.
Held: his claim is failed. The information given by Clark was only to release himself and not in response to the offer.
 
Application:-
      Base of law that, that harris make a offer on in local newspaper about is lost camera and the reward who found the camera. And govinda return the camera without knowing the offer that harris make in the newspaper.it show that govinda don’t have communication of the harris make in the local newspaper. So we can assume that there is an offer but there is no acceptance in her situation.
      We can apply the decision of court in the case of R v Clarke (1927) where by the court held his claim failed.  The information by Clarke was only to release himself and not in response to the offer.  The court also decide the same judgment in second case, namely in the case of Taylor v Laird (1956) which the court held display Taylor did not communicate to Laird his offer to give his service to sail the ship back.  Therefor Laird did not know about the offer and did not have the opportunity either to accept or reject the offer.  Therefore Laird is not liable to pay the remuneration to Taylor.
By these two authority, again, we may say that there was no contract between Govinda and Harris.
 
Conclusion:-
     As to conclude in this case, govinda cannot claim the reward because there is no contract between  harris and govinda because govinda leak of knowledge of the contract.

Tham and Bee Ling's cases

ISSUE:-  whether there is any legal binding between Tham and Bee Ling?
 
LAW:-  
     Intention to create legal relation is one of the essential elements to form a valid contract. Without intention, a contract may not exist. This case base on second categories of agreements which is social, domestic and family agreement. These agreement are agreements that are not involving any business or profit making activities, which are normally made between family member or friends / acquaintances in their domestic and social relationship. For this kind agreement the law presumed that there is no intention to create legal relation between the parties.
The contract is not binding on the parties.
Examples:
BALFOUR VS BALFOUR
 
Defendant was civil servant station in Sri Lanka. He had promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance as maintenance. His wife had stay in England and unable to follow the defendant to Sri Lanka because of her poor health.
Later the defendant failed to keep his promise and therefore the wife sued the defendant for breach of contract.
HELD: the defendant’s promise was not a legally binding and enforceable contract because the agreement was a family and domestic agreement and therefore it is presumed that the parties did not intend the promise to be legally binding contract.
 
APPLICATION:-  
     As we refer to the case of Tham and Bee Ling we may say that there is no agreement or contract  between Tham and Bee Ling.  It is because the promise made by Tham was not a legally binding and enforceable contract.
We can apply the decision of court in  the case of Balfour v Balfour whereby the court held the defendant’s promise was not a legally binding and enforceable contract because the agreement was a family and domestic agreement and therefore it is presumed that the parties did not intent the promise to be legally binding contract.
 
CONCLUSION:-  
     The conclude is, we can say that Tham are doesn’t have to pay monthly billing to the his wife, Bee Ling since there is no contract between them.

Harris and Govinda's cases.
Harris and Govinda's cases.
Issue : Whether there is a communication of proposal between Harris and Govinda?
 
 Law : According to section 2(a) when one person signifies to another his/her willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, he/she is said to make a proposal. Next, according to the issue, it is include in the section 4(1) that stated a  communication of  a proposal is only complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. However, by following section 4(2)(a) , as against the proposer, the communication of an acceptance is complete when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor while following section 4(2)(b) as against the acceptor, the communication of an acceptance is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.
 
 Application : Applying to Govinda's situation, it did not comes to the knowledge of him about the existance of reward as stated in section 4(1). Govinda is same as Clarke in R v Clarke cases when he did not know the reward that has been offered by Australian Government.
 
 Conclusion : Therefore Govinda cannot claim the reward from Harris because there is not complete contact between them.
 
Siti Aishah Binti Mohd Nor Ng.
HM241/2A
 

TUTORIAL QUESTION
TUTORIAL QUESTION
Kindly submit Harris and Govinda' tutorial together with Tham's case here in my padlet. 

Thank you and happy learning!!

❤'s,
Mdm Nadiah


ASSALAMUALAIKUM & HELLO
ASSALAMUALAIKUM & HELLO
Dear Students,

This padlet is  for your Law 438 tutorial subject group THURSDAY evening 2-5pm

You may upload your tutorial here. 

Cheers!

Mdm Nadiah

# data[].attributes.body
SITI NORFARAHIN BINTI HAMDAN

HM241/2A

HARRIS V GOVINDA
THAM V BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Binti Mohd Nor Ng.
HM241/2A

Issue : Whether there is a contract between Tham and his wife, Bee Ling ?

Law : It is important to show that the parties do intend to enter into a contract. When it is come silent on the issue of intention, there seems no doubt that this is vital requirement. The purpose of determining intention of the parties involved in the agreement 2 presumptions apply namely which are social and domestic arrangement and commercial arrangement. The social and domestic arrangement mean there is a presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relation while the commercial arrangement mean that in commercial agreement there is strong presumption that the parties do intend to create legally binding contract unless otherwise stated.

Application : Applying to the Tham's situation, there is  no contract between Tham and his wife because he make a promise which is he promise to pay Bee Ling a monthly allowance of RM1,000 without any intention to make a contract between them. Based on Balfour v Balfour's case, an agreement made between members of a family in the course of a family life, the law will ordinarily imply from the circumstances of the case that the parties did not intend their agreement to have legal consequences. So, based on the case, we can apply the court decision in the Tham v Bee Ling's case.Therefore, there is no contract between Tham and his wife, Bee Ling.

Conclusion : Therefore, Bee ling cannot sue Tham because there is no valid contract  between them.

# data[].attributes.body
Muhammad Hazimi bin Mohd Hanafiah
2017725925 HM2453C1
Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Muhammad Hazimi bin Mohd Hanafiah
2017725925 HM2453C1
Govinda v Harris

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Khalilah binti Abdul Jalil
HM2453B2

# data[].attributes.body
Siti khalilah binti abdul jalil
HM245B

# data[].attributes.body
Shaffrin Ameer Rosalizi HM2453 C1

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmad Safwan Aqil Bin Ahmad Padzir (HM2453C1)

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmad Safwan Aqil Bin Ahmad Padzir (HM2453C1)

# data[].attributes.body
Shaffrin Ameer Rosalizi HM2453 C1

# data[].attributes.body
Muhammad bin mazlan hm245/3c2

# data[].attributes.body
Muhammad bin mazlan Hm 245/3c2

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmad Omar Iqram B Ramli
HM 245 3C1

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmad Omar Iqram B Ramli
HM 245 3C1

# data[].attributes.body
Nabila Atikah binti Mohd Nazeri
HM2453C2

# data[].attributes.body
Nabila Atikah binti Mohd Nazeri
HM2453C2

# data[].attributes.body
Adib Akram Bin Mohamad
HM245 3C2
Govinda V Harris

# data[].attributes.body
Adib akram bin mohamad
HM245 3C2
Tham V Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Azwan Faris Bin Azli
HM2453C2
Tham V Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Azwan Faris Bin Azli
HM2453C2
Govinda V Haris

# data[].attributes.body
Tham vs Bee Ling conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Tham vs bee ling

# data[].attributes.body
Harris vs Govinda conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
HARRIS VS GONVINDA

# data[].attributes.body
Tham V Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda and Haris

# data[].attributes.headline
HUSNA AYUMI BINTI SHAHRIL HAMKA(HM2412A)

# data[].attributes.subject
HUSNA AYUMI BINTI SHAHRIL HAMKA(HM2412A)

# data[].attributes.body
BOTH CASE :)

# data[].attributes.body
(HM2412A)
THAM AND BEE LING

# data[].attributes.body
(HM2412)
GOVINDA AND HARRIS

# data[].attributes.body
NUR SYIFAA AMNAH BT ANNUAR
(HM2412A)
Both tutorial

# data[].attributes.body
Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda and Harris

# data[].attributes.headline
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda and Harris

# data[].attributes.headline
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Muhammad Safiuddin Bin Md Yazid (HM245C1)

# data[].attributes.body
Tham V Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Fatimah Irdina binti Mohd Hakem (HM2453C1)
Tham v Bee Ling

# data[].attributes.body
Tham v Bee Ling case

# data[].attributes.body
Fatimah Irdina binti Mohd Hakem (HM2453C1)
Govinda v Harris

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda v Harris case part 2

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda v Harris case part 1

# data[].attributes.body
harris n govinda

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Atiqah Bt Mohamad
HM2453C1

# data[].attributes.body
Govinda and Harris case
Nur Atiqah Mohamad
HM2453

# data[].attributes.headline
Tengku Khairani Binti Tengku Muhamad Fawzi

# data[].attributes.subject
Tengku Khairani Binti Tengku Muhamad Fawzi

# data[].attributes.body
Harris and Govinda's cases

Issue :- Whether there is communication of proposal between Hariss and Govinda?

Law :-

Section 2(a) – When a person promises or proposes something to another party with the intention that his promise/ proposal would be accepted by that other party, he is said to make an offer.

Section 4(1)- If  the offeree  does not know about the offer,  the offer itself is not valid. Thus, there be no binding contract.

Section 3- therefore mere intention to accept without communication the acceptance to the offeror does not give rise to valid and binding contract.

Section 4 (2)- the communication of an acceptance is complete, as against the acceptor, when it comes to the to the knowledge of the proposer.

Case:-

R V CLARKE

The Australian government offered a reward for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons responsible for the murder of 2 police officers.

Mr. X and Mr. Clarke were arrested. Clarke then give information which lead to the arrest of another person  Mr. Y . Both Mr. X and Mr. Y were later convicted for the offence and Clarke who was not guilty was release. Clarke later heard about the reward and claimed it.

Held: his claim is failed. The information given by Clark was only to release himself and not in response to the offer.

Application:-

Base of law that, that harris make a offer on in local newspaper about is lost camera and the reward who found the camera. And govinda return the camera without knowing the offer that harris make in the newspaper.it show that govinda don’t have communication of the harris make in the local newspaper. So we can assume that there is an offer but there is no acceptance in her situation.

We can apply the decision of court in the case of R v Clarke (1927) where by the court held his claim failed.  The information by Clarke was only to release himself and not in response to the offer.  The court also decide the same judgment in second case, namely in the case of Taylor v Laird (1956) which the court held display Taylor did not communicate to Laird his offer to give his service to sail the ship back.  Therefor Laird did not know about the offer and did not have the opportunity either to accept or reject the offer.  Therefore Laird is not liable to pay the remuneration to Taylor.

By these two authority, again, we may say that there was no contract between Govinda and Harris.

Conclusion:-

As to conclude in this case, govinda cannot claim the reward because there is no contract between  harris and govinda because govinda leak of knowledge of the contract.

Tham and Bee Ling's cases

ISSUE:-  whether there is any legal binding between Tham and Bee Ling?

LAW:-

Intention to create legal relation is one of the essential elements to form a valid contract. Without intention, a contract may not exist. This case base on second categories of agreements which is social, domestic and family agreement. These agreement are agreements that are not involving any business or profit making activities, which are normally made between family member or friends / acquaintances in their domestic and social relationship. For this kind agreement the law presumed that there is no intention to create legal relation between the parties.

The contract is not binding on the parties.

Examples:

BALFOUR VS BALFOUR

Defendant was civil servant station in Sri Lanka. He had promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance as maintenance. His wife had stay in England and unable to follow the defendant to Sri Lanka because of her poor health.

Later the defendant failed to keep his promise and therefore the wife sued the defendant for breach of contract.

HELD: the defendant’s promise was not a legally binding and enforceable contract because the agreement was a family and domestic agreement and therefore it is presumed that the parties did not intend the promise to be legally binding contract.

APPLICATION:-

As we refer to the case of Tham and Bee Ling we may say that there is no agreement or contract  between Tham and Bee Ling.  It is because the promise made by Tham was not a legally binding and enforceable contract.

We can apply the decision of court in  the case of Balfour v Balfour whereby the court held the defendant’s promise was not a legally binding and enforceable contract because the agreement was a family and domestic agreement and therefore it is presumed that the parties did not intent the promise to be legally binding contract.

CONCLUSION:-

The conclude is, we can say that Tham are doesn’t have to pay monthly billing to the his wife, Bee Ling since there is no contract between them.

# data[].attributes.body
Issue : Whether there is a communication of proposal between Harris and Govinda?

Law : According to section 2(a) when one person signifies to another his/her willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, he/she is said to make a proposal. Next, according to the issue, it is include in the section 4(1) that stated a  communication of  a proposal is only complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. However, by following section 4(2)(a) , as against the proposer, the communication of an acceptance is complete when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor while following section 4(2)(b) as against the acceptor, the communication of an acceptance is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.

Application : Applying to Govinda's situation, it did not comes to the knowledge of him about the existance of reward as stated in section 4(1). Govinda is same as Clarke in R v Clarke cases when he did not know the reward that has been offered by Australian Government.

Conclusion : Therefore Govinda cannot claim the reward from Harris because there is not complete contact between them.

Siti Aishah Binti Mohd Nor Ng.
HM241/2A

# data[].attributes.body
Kindly submit Harris and Govinda' tutorial together with Tham's case here in my padlet.

Thank you and happy learning!!

❤'s,
Mdm Nadiah

# data[].attributes.body
Dear Students,

This padlet is  for your Law 438 tutorial subject group THURSDAY evening 2-5pm

You may upload your tutorial here.

Cheers!

Mdm Nadiah