Law Research Essay

An rivalment without retainer is head off. Do you agree? Justify your response on the basis on what you have learnt slightly this find out and its exceptions. Use qualified illustrations to substantiate your answer.A legally binding crusade needs circumstance as it is an important element. So, a valid beget testament non hold out without regard. By promise someone sacrifices or gives something and separate people take something. This kind of giving or taking and sacrificing is called consideration by righteousness. If one fellowship promises without either consideration that is a gift.Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a compact. It may live of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to bring to an end from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. S2 (d) pinch do work 1950 defines consideration, when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or both other psyche has done or concludeed from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.It can as well as be defined as a evil suffered in exchange for a benefit current, apiece companionship must promise to give or do something for the other. Consideration must exist in every contracts and it must have monetary value. in that location have been a number of case law definitions of consideration, for example Currie v Misa (1875) A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may live either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, sledding or responsibility given, suffered or belowtaken by the other.S26 use up Act 1950 states that, an pledge make without consideration is void, unless (a) it is in writing and registered it is expressed in writing and registered under the law (if any) for the time being in durability for the registration of such documents, and is made on method of beaking of natural love and affection between parties stand up in a near relation to to each one other. Besides that, (b) or is a promise to comprehend for something done it is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promise, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do.Also, (c) or is a promise to profits debt barricaded by limitation law it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent loosely or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have en pressured payment except for the law for the limitation of suits. An accordance is a contract in any there cases. Illustrations for S26 function Act 1950, (a) A promises, for no consideration, to give to B RM1, 000.This is a void agreement. (b) A, for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, RM1,000. A puts hi s promise to B into writing and registers it under a law for the time being in force for the registration of such documents, this is a contract. (c) A finds Bs purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A RM 50. This is a contract. (d) A supports Bs babe son. B promises to pay As expenses in so doing. This is a contract. (e) A owes B RM1, 000, barely the debt is barred by limitation. A signs a scripted promise to pay B RM500 on account of the debt. This is a contract. (f) A agrees to make out a sawbuck worth RM1, 000 for RM 10. As consent to the agreement was freely given. The agreement is a contract as yet the inadequacy of the consideration.(g) A agrees to distri providede a horse worth RM1, 000 for RM 10. A denies that consent to the agreement was freely given. The inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which the coquet should take into account in considering whether or non As consent was freely given. In conclusion, I agree with the statement an agreement without consideration is void. If an agreement without consideration is valid, it is unfair to everyone who is protected by the law. Therefore, according to S26 charter Act 1950, an agreement made without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law.Question 2Khalid was implicated in purchaseing Sitis picture which she had name calling Hawa. Khalid met Siti and told her that he exit pay her RM5,000 for Hawa. Siti said she get out think about it. 2 weeks later Siti told Khalid that she pull up stakes sell him the painting for RM7,000. Khalid said that the price was overly high and he did not want the painting. ace week later, Khalid received bonus from his employer. He at one time contacted Siti and told her that he will pay the RM7,000 for Hawa. Siti refused to give Khalid the painting, formula the price had now departed up to RM10,000. inform to Siti wheth er she is recant by any contract to sell the painting to Khalid for RM7,000? Make references to relevant case laws and legislation. sleep withWhether Siti is bound by any contract to sell the painting to Khalid for RM7,000? Identify and Application of Law The Contract Act 1950 is the law governing the making of a contract. S2 (g) Contract Act 1950 states that an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void and S2 (h) Contract Act 1950 states an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Therefore, to determine whether there Siti is bound by any contract to sell the painting to Khalid for RM7,000? Firstly, S2 (b) Contract Act 1950, when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be trustworthy a proposal, when take ined, becomes a promise.S2 (c) Contract Act 1950, the person making the proposal is called the promisor and the person accept the proposal is called the promisee. In this case here, Khalid can be said to be an cracker and if Siti trustworthy the beseech, she would become the spellee. Khalid adjureed to Siti to pay her RM5,000 for buying the painting Hawa. Siti said she will think about it precisely she did not accept the vortex. In S6 (c) Contract Act 1950, by bereavement of the acceptor to fulfill a condition precedent to acceptation or counter adduce, the proposal is revoked. Hyde v wring (1840), D made an offer to sell his signboard for 1000 pound.P purposely accepted at 950 pound but when D refused, P accepted the original offer of 1000 pound. Here, the counter offer terminated the original offer. There was nothing to accept. later two weeks, Siti made a counter offer to Khalid that she will sell him the painting Hawa for RM7,000. Then Khalid immediately said price was too high, he did not want the painting Hawa. Besides that, This counter offer also terminated the original offer which was Khalid offered Siti to buy the painting Hawa for RM5,000. So there was no any contra ct between Siti and Khalid. One week later, Khalid received bonus from his employer.He immediately contacted Siti and told her that he will pay RM7,000 for the painting Hawa. In here, Khalid made an offer to Siti again. However, Siti refused to give Khalid the painting for RM7,000. She told Khalid that the price of Hawa had now gone up to RM10,000. Siti did not accept Khalids offer and she inform Khalid that the price of Hawa had gone up to RM10,000. Therefore, there was no any contract between Siti and Khalid in this case. If Khalid really wanted to buy the painting Hawa for RM7,000, he should not refuse Siti immediately at the moment. He should just tell Siti that he would think about it.If he told Siti that he would think about it but not refused it, then there was a contract between Siti and Khalid. In conclusion, Siti is not bound by any contract to sell the painting Hawa to Khalid for RM7,000. S 3 Contract Act 1950 states the communication of proposals, the credenza of propos als, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting, or revoking, by which he intends to communicate the proposal, acceptance, or revocation, or which has the effect of communication it.The general rule of S3 Contract Act 1950 is the acceptance must be communicated. In this case, when Siti made a counter offer to Khalid to sell the painting Hawa for RM7,000, Khalid did not accept the offer, but he refused it due to the price was too high. So the offer of selling the painting Hawa for RM7,000 was terminated, the offer was no longer exist. Therefore, Siti is not bound by any contract to sell the painting Hawa to Khalid for RM7,000.List of ReferencesThe Lawyers & Jurists (2010) Insuffiency of consideration is immaterial, but an agreement without consideration is void- illustrate and explain. online open at http//www.lawyersnjurists.com/resource/articles-and-assignment/insuffiency-considerati on-immaterial-agreement-consideration-void-%E2%80%93-illustrate-explain/ Accessed 25th Aug 2012. Laws of Malaysia. (2009) Contract Act 1950. Kuala Lumpur The Commissioner of Law Revision, Malaysia, p.1213.