Concrete Steel Bars Dispute

To help you better, could you specify what part of the law or the analysis you need more details on? This will enable me to give you a more targeted explanation.

Case Rating: *
To determine if there was a proposal, let's break it down:
- Issue: Whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal and whether Taylor can assume acceptance due to silence.
- Law Applicable:
- Section *(a) of the Contract Act *: Defines a proposal.
- Section *(b) of the Contract Act *: Defines acceptance.
- Section * of the Contract Act *: Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.
- Application:
- Invitation to Treat: Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's announcement is an invitation to treat, not a proposal.
- Proposal: Taylor’s email is a proposal to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd.
- Silence as Acceptance: According to Section *, acceptance must be communicated explicitly and must be absolute and unqualified. Silence cannot be construed as acceptance.
- Conclusion: Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not make a valid proposal, and Taylor cannot assume acceptance due to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's silence. Therefore, Taylor does not have a strong case for suing Pembinaan Sdn Bhd.
Do you need further clarification on any specific part

To determine if there was a proposal, let's break it down using the Contract Act * and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.:
- Issue: Whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal and whether Taylor can assume acceptance due to silence.
- Law Applicable:
- Section *(a): A person makes a proposal when they signify their willingness to do or abstain from doing something with the intention of obtaining the assent of another person.
- Section *(b): Acceptance occurs when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies their assent, thus converting the proposal into a promise.
- Section *: Acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the proposer.
- Section *(h): An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Case:
- In this case, the advertisement was deemed a unilateral offer to the world, which was accepted by anyone who performed the conditions stated in the advertisement.
- Application:
- Invitation to Treat vs. Proposal: Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's announcement is an invitation to treat, nota proposal. Taylor's email constitutes a proposal to purchase the concrete steel bars.
- Silence as Acceptance: Under Section *, acceptance must be explicitly communicated and be absolute and unqualified. Silence cannot be considered as acceptance.
- Conclusion:
- Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not make a formal proposal; their announcement was an invitation to treat. Taylor cannot assume acceptance due to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's silence, and thus, Taylor does not have a strong legal basis to sue Pembinaan Sdn Bhd.
Do you have any specific questions or need further details on any part?

---
Legal Analysis of Taylor’s Case Against Pembinaan Sdn Bhd Under the Contract Act *
On 1st November *, Pembinaan Sdn Bhd announced their intention to sell RM100,* worth of concrete steel bars to the public. Taylor, a contractor, responded to this announcement by sending an email expressing his desire to purchase the concrete steel bars. In his email, Taylor stated that if he did not receive a response by the next evening, he would assume that his proposal was accepted. Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not reply to Taylor's email, and when Taylor attempted to purchase the steel bars two days later, he was informed that the steel bars had already been sold to another party.
To advise Taylor on whether he has a legal basis to sue Pembinaan Sdn Bhd, it is essential to analyze the scenario using the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) formula and relevant provisions of the Contract Act *.
Issue:
The primary issue is whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal to sell the concrete steel bars and whether Taylor can assume acceptance of his proposal due to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's silence.
Law:
Therelevant sections of the Contract Act * that apply to this situation include:
- Section *(a): Definition of Proposal - A person makes a proposal when they signify their willingness to do or abstain from doing something with the intention of obtaining the assent of another person.
- Section *(b): Definition of Acceptance - Acceptance occurs when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies their assent, thus converting the proposal into a promise.
- Section *: Acceptance Must Be Absolute and Unqualified - For a proposal to become a promise, the acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the proposer.
- Section *(h): Definition of Contract - An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
Additionally, the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. provides insight into unilateral offers and acceptance. In this case, the advertisement was deemed a unilateral offer, accepted by anyone who performed the conditions stated in the advertisement.
Application:
*. Invitation to Treat vs. Proposal:
- Announcement by Pembinaan Sdn Bhd: The announcement to sell concrete steel bars is considered an invitation to treat, not a proposal. An invitation to treat is an invitation to

Based on the scenario, Pembinaan Sdn Bhd’s announcement is not a valid proposal but an invitation to treat. Here's an essay form of the analysis:
---
Legal Analysis of Taylor’s Case Against Pembinaan Sdn Bhd Under the Contract Act *
On 1st November *, Pembinaan Sdn Bhd announced their intention to sell RM100,* worth of concrete steel bars to the public. Taylor, a contractor, responded by sending an email expressing his desire to purchase the concrete steel bars. In his email, Taylor stated that if he did not receive a response by the next evening, he would assume that his proposal was accepted. Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not reply to Taylor's email, and when Taylor attempted to purchase the steel bars two days later, he was informed that the steel bars had already been sold to another party.
To advise Taylor on whether he has a legal basis to sue Pembinaan Sdn Bhd, it is essential to analyze the scenario using the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) formula and relevant provisions of the Contract Act *.
Issue:
The primary issue is whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal and whetherTaylor can assume acceptance due to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd’s silence.
Law:
The relevant sections of the Contract Act * that apply to this situation include:
- Section *(a): A person makes a proposal when they signify their willingness to do or abstain from doing something with the intention of obtaining the assent of another person.
- Section *(b): Acceptance occurs when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies their assent, thus converting the proposal into a promise.
- Section *: Acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the proposer.
- Section *(h): An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: In this case, the advertisement was deemed a unilateral offer to the world, which was accepted by anyone who performed the conditions stated in the advertisement.
Application:
*. Invitation to Treat vs. Proposal:
- Announcement by Pembinaan Sdn Bhd: The announcement to sell concrete steel bars is considered an invitation to treat, not a proposal. An invitation to treat is an invitation to negotiate or make an offer.
- Taylor’s Email: Taylor's email constitutes a proposal

Based on the Contracts Act *, here's an essay analysis of Taylor’s situation:
---
Legal Analysis of Taylor’s Case Against Pembinaan Sdn Bhd Under the Contracts Act *
On 1st November *, Pembinaan Sdn Bhd announced their intention to sell RM100,* worth of concrete steel bars to the public. Taylor, a contractor, responded by sending an email expressing his desire to purchase the concrete steel bars, stating that if he did not receive a response by the next evening, he would assume that his proposal was accepted. Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not reply, and when Taylor tried to purchase the steel bars two days later, he was informed that they had already been sold to another party.
To advise Taylor, we need to analyze the scenario based on the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) formula and the relevant provisions of the Contracts Act *.
Issue:
The central issue is whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal and whether Taylor can assume acceptance due to Pembinaan Sdn Bhd’s silence.
Law:
The pertinent sections of the Contracts Act * are:
- Section *(a):A person makes a proposal when they signify their willingness to do or abstain from doing something with the intention of obtaining the assent of another person.
- Section *(b): Acceptance occurs when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies their assent, thus converting the proposal into a promise.
- Section *: Acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the proposer.
- Section *(h): An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: This case established that an advertisement can be a unilateral offer if it is intended to be binding.
Application:
*. Invitation to Treat vs. Proposal:
- Announcement by Pembinaan Sdn Bhd: The announcement to sell concrete steel bars is considered an invitation to treat, not a proposal. An invitation to treat is an invitation to negotiate or make an offer.
- Taylor’s Email: Taylor's email constitutes a proposal to purchase the concrete steel bars.
*. Silence as Acceptance:
- Section *: Acceptance must be explicitly communicated and be absolute and unqualified. Silence cannot be considered as acceptance.
- Taylor’s Assumption: Taylor's assumption that

Sure, here's an ILAC format answer for the issue of the contract between C and D involving a minor:
Issue:
Whether there is a valid contract between C and D as C was a minor when he signed the contract.
Law:
- Section *(*) of the Contracts Act *: This section provides that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
- Section * of the Contracts Act *: This section states that every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
- Case of Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat: The principle established in this case is that a contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio (from the beginning).
Application:
- Section *(*) and Section *: Since C was 16 years old at the time of signing the contract, he is considered a minorunder the Contracts Act *. Therefore, he is not competent to contract.
- Tan Hee Juan Case: Applying the principle from this case, the contract between C and D is void from the beginning because C, being a minor, cannot legally enter into a binding contract.
Conclusion:
The contract between C and D is not valid as C was 16 years old (a minor) at the time he signed the contract. Therefore, C is not competent to enter into a contract, making the contract void ab initio.
Do you have any further questions or need additional details?

Legal Analysis of Taylor’s Case Against Pembinaan Sdn Bhd Under the Contract Act *
On 1st November *, Pembinaan Sdn Bhd announced their intention to sell RM100,* worth of concrete steel bars to the public. Taylor, a contractor, responded by sending an email expressing his desire to purchase the concrete steel bars. Taylor stated that if he did not receive a response by the next evening, he would assume that his proposal was accepted. Pembinaan Sdn Bhd did not reply, and when Taylor attempted to purchase the steel bars two days later, he was informed that the steel bars had already been sold to another party.
To determine if there was a valid proposal and acceptance, we need to analyze the scenario using the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) formula and relevant provisions of the Contract Act *.
Issue:
Whether Pembinaan Sdn Bhd made a valid proposal and whether Taylor can assume acceptance due to silence.
Law Applicable:
- Section *(a) of the Contracts Act *: Defines a proposal as when one person signifies to another their willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with the intention of obtaining theassent of the other person.
- Section *(b) of the Contracts Act *: Acceptance occurs when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies their assent, converting the proposal into a promise.
- Section * of the Contracts Act *: Acceptance must be absolute, unqualified, and communicated to the proposer.
- Section *(h) of the Contracts Act *: An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: This case established that an advertisement can be a unilateral offer if it invites performance of specific conditions.
Application:
*. Invitation to Treat vs. Proposal:
- Pembinaan Sdn Bhd's announcement to sell concrete steel bars is an invitation to treat, not a proposal. An invitation to treat is an invitation to negotiate or make an offer, similar to the display of goods in a store.
- Taylor’s email, stating his wish to purchase the concrete steel bars and assuming acceptance if there was no response, can be interpreted as an offer.
*. Silence as Acceptance:
- Under Section *, acceptance must be communicated explicitly and be absolute and unqualified. Silence does not constitute acceptance