-Tut0r!aL-

Chong and Wei went shopping and decided to shop at Super Supermarket. Wei looked at the goods which were on display and decided to purchase 3 face cream which were on offer. She took the bottles to counter where she paid for them. As they were leaving the supermarket, the cashier came up to them and told them that they have to return the goods. Advise Wei according to Contracts Act 1950 and relevant decided cases.

The issue regarding Wei case was whether a legally binding agreement exists between Wei with the cashier of Super Supermarket and whether Wei should return the goods. A legally binding agreement exists if there is offer and acceptance. Goods on display looked by Wei is just an invitation to treat but not an offer. Cases regarding display of goods in shops are Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist and Fisher v. Bell. Any goods with a price tag displayed in a shop was merely an invitation to treat, stated in Fisher versus Bell case.

According to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act, “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 an OFFER.” Thus, it means Wei offer to buy the 3 face creams when she took them to the counter. The known Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. case where Carbolic Smoke Ball would offer 1000 pound to anyone who took their medicine as prescribed for a certain period but found the medicine ineffective. ACCEPTANCE is when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise based on Section 2 (b) of the Contract Act. The sale is said to take place at counter when the cashier accepted the price paid by Wei. Hence, there is a binding contract between Wei and the cashier as Wei offer to buy the products and the cashier accepted her payment.

Under Section 4(2), Contracts Act, the communication of acceptance is complete when a) it is put in a course of transmission to the proposer, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor or b) it comes to the knowledge of the proposer, as against the acceptor. Section 5 of Contracts Act 1950 stated that “An acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor or the proposer, but not afterwards.” Case of Byrne v. Van Tienhoven can be refered where the revocation of offer by defendant was not effective as the plaintiff received the revocation letter only after the communication of acceptance is completed. In this case, the cashier has violated the Contract Act by asking Wei to return the goods hence, Wei has the right to not return the goods. However, if the cashier insist Wei to return the goods then Wei can file a lawsuit against the cashier.