Question

Bart wanted to sell his motorcycle. On 2 August 2014, Bart told his friend, Ted that he
was willing to sell his Dondi E27 motorcycle, which he bought in 2005, for RM3, 200. Bart also
told Ted that if Ted did not leave a message on Barts mobile phone by 7 August 2014, Bart
would take this to mean that Ted was not interested in buying the motorcycle and Bart would ask
other people if they wanted to buy Barts motorcycle.
Ted decided to buy Barts motorcycle and asked Barts sister, Linda to tell Bart that Ted
agreed to buy Barts motorcycle. Linda forgot to deliver Teds message. Ted met Bart in the
afternoon of 8 August 2014 and asked Bart when Bart would be delivering the motorcycle. Bart
told Ted that he sold the motorcycle to Ryan that morning.
Discuss whether it is likely that Ted can sue Bart for breach of contract.

Answer
The elements of the question focus on the communication of offer and acceptance, the
manner of communication and the manner of acceptance. In this case of Bart v Ted, the issue is
whether there is a contract between Ted and Bart, and whether Bart is liable to be sued by Ted for
breach of contract.
According to Section 10 (1) of the Contract Law Act 1950, all agreements are contracts
that are enforceable by law if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract,
for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Section 10 (2) also states that nothing herein contained shall affect any law by which any
contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to
the registration of documents. In Section 2 (a), a proposal is explained as when one person
signifies to another his willingness to do anything or to abstain from doing, with the view to
obtaining the assent of that other. Section 2 (b) states that acceptance is when the person to
whom the proposal is made signifies his assent. Under Section 4 (1), the communication of a
proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. Section
6 (b) provides that a proposal is revoked by the lapse of time prescribed in the proposal for its
acceptance, or, if no time is so prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time, without
communication of acceptance. In Section 7 (b), it is stated that acceptance must be expressed in
some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be
accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted and the acceptance is
not made in that manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is
communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not
otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance. Examples of case laws related to
this case is Affin Credit (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Yap Yuen Fui [1984] where it was held that the
agreement is void ab initio for lack of offer and acceptance. This was because the written
proposal signed by the hirer without the condition precedent (that is to give written statement
first) being fulfilled was not a proposal recognized by the Act and as such there cannot be an
acceptance by the Owner of a non-existence offer. In another case, Yates Building Co. Ltd. v
RJ Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd. [1970], it was held that there was no enforceable contract as a
precise requirement had to be sent by registered or recorded delivery post, which the plaintiff
did not comply. In Tinn v Hoffman [1873], the plaintiff wrote to the defendant for a price on
800 tons of iron. The defendant offered the iron at 69 shillings per ton and asked for a reply by
return. It was conceded that since the offer was not in fact accepted by return of post, there was
no contract but the judge, Honeyman J said that obiter that a telegram or verbal message or any
other means at least as fast as a letter written by return of post would have been sufficient. An
offer must be clear, complete, final and specific to avoid any vagueness. In Guthing v Lynn, the
defendant offered to buy a horse from Guthing and he was to pay 5 pounds extra if the horse
brought him good luck. The case was held by the court saying that the condition is too vague to
constitute a binding contract.
In this case, Bart is the promisor and Ted is the promisee. Bart made an offer to Ted to
sell his motorcycle to him with the condition that he leaves a message on Barts mobile phone by
7 August 2014. If Ted fails to do that, Bart would then make the offer to other people. Ted
decided to buy the motorcycle and asked Barts sister to relay the message to her brother which
she forgot. On the 8th of August, Ted asked Bart about the motorcycle and got to know that Bart
had sold it to Ryan on that morning. According to Section 2 (a), there is a proposal, evidenced
2

by the offer made by Bart to Ted. Therefore, the communication of proposal is made when the
promisee is made aware of the proposal as stated in Section 4 (1). However, there is no assent on
the promisors part as he was not made aware of the acceptance by the promisee, though Ted had
fulfilled Section 2 (b) by signifying his assent to the proposal made to him. Bart had clearly
stated that should Ted be interested in the offer, he had to leave a message on Barts mobile
phone by 7 August 2014. Although Ted was interested, he took the risk of unsuccessful
communication of the acceptance through Linda. Thus, he did not fulfill the manner of
acceptance that was specified by Bart. This fact is further supported by the judgment in Yates
Building Co. Ltd. v RJ Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd. [1970]. Another fact is that Barts offer to
Ted had a dateline which was 7 August 2014. Since Bart did not receive Teds reply of
acceptance by the manner he had designated, he had the right to make an offer to another person.
Barts revocation of the proposal to Ted was unnecessary because his offer to Ted had lapsed
after 7th of August. He did not need to revoke his proposal because Ted asked about the proposal
on the 8th of August, a day after the proposal is revoked by the lapse of time prescribed in the
proposal for its acceptance.
In order to sue Bart, Ted has to first show that there is a valid contract. In order to identify
a valid contract, there must be a valid offer and acceptance. Although there is an offer from Bart
to Ted, since Bart did not receive a reply or a confirmation from Ted, there is no contract
between them. The manner of Teds acceptance by communication through Barts sister is not
acceptable due to the specified manner of communication stated by Bart in the proposal. As
such, Bart is not liable to be sued in court by Ted since no contract has been made between them.