Maju Jaya Supermarket (MJ Supermarket) Essay

Maju Jaya Supermarket (MJ Supermarket) advertises in the papers that thither is a va usher outcy for the attitude of manager. The advertising stated thatthose who are evoke can line up anytime to MJ Supermarket for an hearing from 11th April 2014 until 21st April 2014. Ahmad who was genuinely interested with the post came to MJ Supermarket on 20th April 2014 and was informed by the owner that the post was already filled. Ahmad was very angry as he has already tendered his resignation to his former company. On the solar day that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket, he saw Mr Chan, his neighbour, entering the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned food, shampoo, nut and vegetables. He stick all the items into his trolley. However, while he was still looking at for opposite items, Mr Chan received a call from his son asking him to tack him up from the train station. Mr Chan left the items in the trolley and went out from the MJ Supermarket. appreciate Ahmad and Mr Chan whet her in that location is any contract in the midst of them and the MJ Supermarket. (20 MARKS)ANSWER to Part A (Ahmad Case)IntroductionThe definition presumptuousness beneath the Section 2(h) of the Contracts exertion 1950 is that a contract is an bargain enforceable by law (The Commissi sensationr of Law Revision, 2006). thitherfore in the Ahmads case, one of the parties (Ahamd or MJ Supermarket) has to take up an notch that is punctually recognized by the other.IssueFirst issue that we need spoken communication in this case is to see whether the advertisement stating the inter draw deadlines contains an offer. If it does, can Ahmads willingness to attend the oppugn be reckoned as an acceptance of the offer? In case the advertisement is not considered as an offer, or if it is just an invitation to treat, whence there is no contract between them. Second issue elevated by the question is whether Ahmads presence in the MJ Supermarket to attend the interview on time, aft er his resignation from his previous job, is an offer. In that case, does MJ Supermarket can disown Ahmads offer? base on the limited information given in the Ahmads case, the issues were analysed to see whether there is a contract between both parties?The LawAccording to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, an offer exists when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence, he is verbalise to make a proposal (Rahman , 2011). As given in the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke puffiness Co Ltd (1893) 1 QB 256 case, a proposal or an offer can also be made to the general public to be recognised by any person who knows about it and willing to perform the requirements of the proposer. On the other hand, an invitation to treat can be delimitate as bighearted information or requests to others to make offers.Application of the Law to the Facts of the ProblemThe advertisement by the MJ Supermarket clearly states that those who are interested can come anytime to MJ Supermarket for an interview from 11th April 2014 until 21st April 2014. This raise the question whether the advertisement is intended to jump in contract with the participants who come for the interview. In case of COELHO v. THE PUBLIC work COMMISSION1964 M.L.J.12, the applicant, a Health Inspector under the Town Board, Tanjong Malim, applied for the post of Assistant Passport Officer in the Federation of Malaya Government marine Missions advertised in the Malay Mail dated 19 February 1957. Consequently, the applicant was informed that he was accepted and, after undergoing training, he was posted to the immigration Office, Kuala Lumpur, where he remained until December 1958 when he was transferred to the Immigration Office at Johor Bahru (Rahman , 2011).The higher(prenominal) Court ruled that the newspaper advertisement was an invitation for qualified persons to apply and the application s were inured as offers. Same can be expressed to the case of Ahmad that the newspaper advertisement by the MJ Supermarket is an invitation to those who are interested to act in the interview. In the case of Gibson v Manchester CC 1979 1 tout ensemble ER 972, HL local council write to populates inviting them to apply to obtain their homes. One such tenant P did apply, and a price was agreed. Following a change of caller control, the new council DD ref employ to go ahead with the sale. The House of Lords said there was no binding contract P had made an offer which DD had not unless accepted. Phrases in the correspondence such as may be active to transfer and please complete the enclosed application form were revelatory of an invitation to treat (ThomsonReuters, 2004). Similarly to this case, the advertisement by the MJ supermarket stated that those who are interested can come any time to the interview is crucial to consider that the advertisement was a step in the negotiati on for a contract. cultivationConsidering the court ruling on both Coelhos case and Gibsons case, the advertisement made in the newspaper was an invitation to treat. However, the presence of Ahmad to participate in the interview is considered as an offer. The MJ Supermarket rejected this offer. Therefore the advice to Ahmad is that there is no contract between himself and the MJ Supermarket.ANSWER to Part B (Ahmad Case)On the day that Ahmad came to the MJ Supermarket, he saw Mr Chan, his neighbour, entering the MJ Supermarket and selected some canned food, shampoo, eggs and vegetables. He put all the items into his trolley. However, while he was still looking for other items, Mr Chan received a call from his son asking him to pick him up from the train station. Mr Chan left the items in the trolley and went out from the MJ Supermarket.IntroductionThe definition given under the Section 2(h) of the Contracts Act 1950 is that a contract is an agreement enforceable by law (The Commissio ner of Law Revision, 2006). In the case of Chan, there should be an offer made by Chan and this offer should be accepted by the MJ Supermarket to make a contract.IssueThe issue raised in the question is whether the Mr Chans action of taking goods from super market racks and put it into the basket contains an offer or an acceptance of an offer. Does he or MJ Supermarket gather the requirements of a contract?The LawAccording to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, an offer exists when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to 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. An invitation to treat can bedefined as giving information or requests to others to make offers. In the Contracts Act 1950, Section 4(1) states that the communication of a proposal is complete when the proposal comes to the familiarity of the person to whom it is made. To fulfil the pre-conditions of a cont ract, the proposal should be clearly communicated to the acceptor. to a lower place Section 5(1) of the Contracts 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.Application of the Law to the Facts of the ProblemMr Chan took goods by himself suggests that there is a display of goods in the MJ Supermarket and allows customers to voluntarily pick goods they like and purchase from the counter. In the case of Fisher v Bell 1960 3 in all ER 731, DC it was a statutory offence under the travail of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 to offer for sale any of various items, including flick-knives. A Bristol shopkeeper R displayed such a knife in his window, with a ticket reading Ejector knife 4s. 4 shillings = 20p, and was prosecuted for an offence under the Act. The divisional Court took a literal interpretation of the statute and said he had committed no offence the display was an invitation to t reat, not an offer to sell (Rahman , 2011). In relation to the Mr Chans scenario, this case can be used to justify an argument of changing mind at any wind of purchase before a contract is made. Therefore Mr Chans finality to leave the goods without buying is acceptable based on Fishers case.In the case of Pharmaceutical Society v Boots 1953 1 All ER 482, CA certain products that were to be sold only under the supervision of a registered pharmacist were displayed on shelves in a self-service shop. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (who are responsible for enforcing this legislation) brought a pursuance against the shop for allowing customers to buy these products by helping themselves, but the Court of allurement (upholding Lord Goddard CJ) said they had no case. The customer having selected the goods made an offer to purchase when he took them to the cash desk, and there was a registered pharmacist supervising that plosive speech sound at which the sale took place (R ahman , 2011). Mr Chan does not take the goodsto the sales counter. In the case it is also mentioned that he was still looking for goods to purchase. However, he revoked from the puzzle out of making an offer to the sales staff when he got a bid call. As mentioned in the Boots case, the action by Mr Chan indicates that he did not justly complete an offer to purchase. In other words, he was involved in an invitation to treat from the MJ Supermarket.ConclusionTo complete a contract between Mr Chan and MJ Supermarket, there is should clear communication of an offer and acceptance between both parties. Based on the discussed cases above, the display of goods are considered as an invitation to treat. Mr Chan does not complete an offer to purchase the goods as he quit his process of purchasing in the middle before taking goods to the sales counter. Futhermore, the MJ Supermarket does not have intimacy of a possible offer from Mr Chan.