The issue is whether an offer to Govinda is valid or not. 

Proposal can be made to general public. If it is made to the general public, then anyone who meets all the term of the proposal may accept. An offer is a promise by one person to another person with the intention to create legally binding relationship. According to Section 2(a) when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything he is said to make a proposal. According to Section 2(c) call the person accepting the proposal the promisee. According to Section 3 of the Contract Act provides that went the communication of the acceptance is deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party accepting, by which he intend to communicate the acceptance and which has the effect of communicating it. According to Section 4(1) stated a communication of a proposal is only complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made (
offeree)

Based on the case R v. Clarke, the Western Australian Government offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of person responsible for the murder of two police officer. X and Clarke were arrested and charged with murders but shortly after, Clarke give information, which lead to the arrest of another person, while X and Y were later convicted for the offence and Clarke who did not commit the murders claimed the reward. It is held that the court refuse to grant his claim. It failed on the ground that the information was given to clear himself from the murder charge and not in reliance on the offer of reward.

For the application in this case, Harris makes an offer to the public said that his going to give a reward of RM500 to anyone who can find and return the camera to him. Without knowing about advertisement made by Harris, Govinda found and return the camera to Harris. On the next day, Govindaonly knew of the reward after reading the advertisement and he wish to claim the reward from Harris. Unfortunately, Govinda can no longer claim the reward as stated in the Section 4(1) which communication of a proposal is only complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

In conclusion, it is advisable for Govinda to not make the claim as the offer is not valid anymore.

 

 

Q : Tham and his wife, Bee Ling, when for a vacation in Vietnam for 2weeks. At the end of the holiday, Tham returned to Malaysia alone as Bee Ling had been hospitalized due to H1N1 influenza. Before returning home, Tham promised to pay billing a monthly allowance of RM1000 which he never fulfilled. Bee Ling claimed that there was a breach of contract by Tham. Tham argued that he had no intention to create legal relation with Bee Ling. Advice Bee Ling.

 

​The issue is whether there is a valid contract between Tham and Bee Ling.

​Intention to create legal relations is a law that requires the party to an argument prove that they intend to have the agreement legally enforced. In other words, they must prove that there is an intention to create legal relations such intention may be either express or implied from the circumstances. Although the element of intention is not mentioned under the Contracts Acts for a valid contract, nevertheless it is an essential element of a contract. Since the Act is silent on the issue, it appears that English Common Law principles will apply. Under the Common Law principles, in order for the court to ascertain whether there is an intention to create legal relations or not between the parties to an agreement, it is classified into Social, Domestic or Family Agreements. There is a presumption that the parties do not intend to have any legal relations, unless the parties specify otherwise.

​Based on the case Balfour v. Balfour, the defendant was a civil servant stationed in Ceylon. While on leave in England, he had promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance as maintenance. His wife was unable to accompany him on account of poor health. However, he did not pay the maintenance and his wife sued for breach of contract. The court held that it was not a legally enforceable agreement because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. However, the presumption is rebuttable if one can prove there’s intention to create legal relation.

​ application of this case, Tham have made a promises to his wife to pay billing a monthly allowance of RM1000 which he never fulfilled. Bee Ling claimed that there was a breach of contract by Tham. Unfortunately, Thamargued that he had no intention to create legal relation with Bee Ling. As stated in the law, the intention to create legal relations requires the party to an argument prove that they intend to have the agreement legally enforced. Hence, Bee Ling could not claimed that there is a breach of contract by Tham.

​In conclusion, it is advisable for Bee Ling to make the claimed that there was a breach of contract by Tham as there is no intention to create legal relation.