a)      Ronaldo placed an advert in the Sabah Daily offering a reward of RM100 to anyone who returned his lost cat Kitty. David found the cat and returned it to Ronaldo, but Ronaldo refused to pay him the RM100 stating that it was only an advertising gimmick to get his cat back.

b)      Mark was out looking for Kitty when Ronaldo’s wife approached him and told him that Ronaldo had withdrawn his offer.

c)      Paul did not know about the advert but found Kitty in his garden and returned her to the address on her collar.

 

Taking each of these situations in turn, discuss whether Ronaldo must pay the reward? Support your answer with relevant provisions.

 

            There is only one issue here that is whether Ronaldo must pay the reward of RM100. There are three situations for this one issue that will be discussed.

            The first situation is with David who found the cat and returned it to Ronaldo with knowledge of the Advert. Most advertisement are considered Invitation to Treat but in Ronaldo’s case, the advert made in Sabah Daily is and offer due to its presence of consideration (reward) and it also a unilateral contract which means Ronaldo is bound by the offer. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256 COA, the advertisement made was held to be an offer and the plaintiff Carlill was entitled for the reward. David’s action of returning the cat to Ronaldo is an acceptance of the offer. Thus, Ronaldo is bound by the promise and have to pay the reward. Ronaldo’s refusal is a breach of contract.

            The second situation is Mark being told by Ronaldo’s wife the offer is being revoked. (?)

            The third situation is between Ronaldo and Paul. An offer must be communicated to the offeree before and acceptance can be made. Thus an action without the knowledge of the offer is no acceptance. Under Section 4(1), for an offer to be effective, it must be communicated to the intended recipient (Potential Offeree). Hence, acceptance cannot be made unless the offeree knew about the existence of the offer. In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Datt [1913], it was held that the plaintiff’s claim was unsuccessful although he fulfilled the requirement for acceptance as he had no knowledge of the offer. Paul had no knowledge about the offer at the time he made the acceptance which is when Paul returned the cat to Ronaldo. Thus, Ronaldo is not bound to pay the reward to Paul.

Mimi is interested in buying a new set of sofa. When she visited Della Design, she is interested in a set called ‘Casamia’, however she does not like the cushion cover.  Della Design has agreed to change its cover in accordance with Mimi’s instructions; the cover must be made of 100% leather.  However, Mimi is disappointed when she notices that the sofa, which has been delivered to her house, is not made of 100% leather.  And Mimi notices that the size of the sofa is smaller than the ones being displayed in the showroom. Mimi seeks your advice on the legal implications of the above matter. Advise Mimi on her rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1957.

 

            Based on the question, the issue is whether Mimi can reject the Sofa delivered to her or not. Under Section 15 of Sales of Goods Act 1957 (revised 1989), where the goods must correspond with description. Goods must correspond with both the sample and description. An example case is Varley v Whipp [1900], where the description of the reaping machine did no correspond with the actual reaping machine delivered and the case Beale v Taylor [1967] where the description stater part of 1961 but the vehicle delivered has half the parts of a later year. Mimi received a good or set of sofa that is not same size as the sample given during her visit at Della Design, and the sofa set delivered is not in accordance of the description. Mimi can reject the sofa received due to breach of condition under section 15 of SOGA 1957.

            Based on the question, there are two issues that will be discussed. The first issue is whether there is a valid contract between Mike and Chris. Mike’s offer on his Facebook page was an invitation to treat which make Chris the offeror, an invitation to treat is an invitation to enter negotiation. Under Section 7 (a), the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. When Chris offered to buy Mike’s Samsung tablet for RM1,200, Mike Refused. Mike’s refusal means there is no acceptance. Mike also did not make any acceptance of RM1,500. Thus there is no valid contract between Mike and Chris.

            The second issue whether there is any contract between Mike and Viva Jeans Clothing Store. The Denim Jacket on the display is an invitation to treat and is only counted as an offer from Mike if he puts it on the Cashier Counter and prepares to pay for it. Mike did not put the Denim jacket on the counter and returned it to the rack. This means Mike did not make an offer.  Hence, there is no valid contract between Mike and Viva Jeans Clothing Store.