James recently won some money on Toto and wants to invest it to get maximum returns. His friend told him that the easiest way was to lend money to persons who cannot get credit from financial institutions or licensed money lenders as they are prepared to pay substantially higher interest rates and James could easily double his money in no time. James decides to try his hand at it although he does not have a money lending licence. He lends Ah Heng $20,000. Ah Heng does not pay up when the loan becomes due. Can James sue Ah Heng? What if instead of lending money James sold Ah Heng pirated CDs on credit terms and Ah Heng now refuses to pay?

Answer:

Introduction
In this case, James won some money on Toto and wants to invest it to get maximum results by lending money to people. However, Ah Heng does not pay up when the loan becomes due.
From the eyes of the law
James is required to obtain a money lending licence to lend money to people legally. However, since James did not have a money lending licence, the contract can be deemed illegal depending on whether the purpose of the licence was used to raise revenue for the government or to protect the public.
Example Case Law: Smith v Mawhood
A tobacconist had to obtain a licence and have his name painted on the place of business. However, he did not do so and tried to sue a customer to recover the price of tobacco he sold at.
Judgement: The purpose of the licence was to raise revenue for the government and hence the contract was not illegal, which allowed the tobacconist to recover the money from the customer.

Example Case Law: Cope v Rowlands
A broker had to obtain a licence in order to start a business. However, he did not do so and tried to sue a customer whom failed to pay.
Judgement: The purpose of the licence was to protect the public and hence the contract was deemed illegal where the broker could not claim compensation from the customer.
Conclusion
Since the purpose of obtaining a money lending licence is to protect the public, the contract is illegal and hence James will not be able to claim compensation from Ah Heng even if he tries to sue him.

If James had sold pirated CDs on credit terms instead of lending money to Ah Heng whom refuses to pay, the contract will still be deemed unenforceable as it is used to commit an illegal act of selling pirated CDs instead of regular CDs.
Example Case Law: ANC Holdings Pte Ltd v Bina Puri Holding Bhd
The plaintiff was to help the defendant in securing some construction projects in Saudi Arabia for commission in return. However, both parties knew that the plaintiff had to pay bribes overseas in order to do this. After the projects were secured, the defendant declared that there was illegality involved and refused to pay the commission.
Judgement: The court supported the defendant’s argument.

Invitation to treats

Answer:

Definition
An invitation to treat is an offer to negotiate or receive offers, for example when a person rings up a company to ask questions about the company’s products or services. The difference between an offer and an invitation to treat is that unlike an offer, an invitation to treat may not have both parties mutually interested in the offer itself. Some common ways of invitations to treat are display of goods, advertisements, tenders and quotations.

Display of goods
The display of goods in a store may or may not be considered as an invitation to treat. If the display of goods were considered to be an invitation to treat, the seller could state that he had reserve the goods for another customer or sold them to someone else if a new customer were to make an offer by attempting to buy the goods. However, if display of goods were considered to be an offer, the customer would have given his acceptance through merely trying it on, putting it in their basket or bringing it to the cashier.

Case Example: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemicals
It was debated whether the display of goods on an open shelf in a shop was considered as an offer.
Judgement: Display of goods is an invitation to treat. The customer makes the offer when he goes to the cashier and a contract is made when the cashier accepts the customer’s offer.

Advertisements
Advertisements may or may not be considered as an invitation to treat. If advertisements were considered to be an invitation to treat, the advertiser is not responsible for any unavailable goods stated in the advertisement as the customer needs to make an offer first in this case. Even if the customer makes an offer, the advertiser does not have to accept it if he does not have the supply of goods.

Case Example: Harris v Nickerson
An advertiser withdrew an auction despite what was stated in the advertisement.
Judgement: The advertiser was not responsible for the plaintiff’s incurred travelling costs in coming to attend the auction as the plaintiff did not made any offer in the first place and hence, there was no contract.

Tenders
Large corporations often ask for submission of tenders for different projects. The invitation to submit tenders is considered as an invitation to treat but the placing of the tenders makes it an offer. Hence, tenders may or may not be an invitation to treat. If the offer is made by placing tenders, these large corporations do not necessary need to accept the tender offer.

Case Example: Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada Ltd
The defendants stated that they were only going to accept the highest tender placed. However, they accepted the company with the lower tender placed instead.
Judgement: The person who placed the highest tender was considered to have accepted the defendants’ offer, hence they were declared to have breached the contract by accepting the person with the lower bid instead.

Quotations
Quotations may or may not be invitations to treat. If it’s a merely a price quotation and not many essential things have been fixed clearly, it is considered an invitation to treat. If there have been many discussions going on and most essential things have been clarified with a payment request, it would be considered an offer.

Case Example: Scancarriers v Aoeteroa International Ltd
The shippers sent a telex to the exporters stating that they agree to a rate of US$120 and the rate will be held until 29th July 1982.
Judgement: Many essential matters like quantity of cargo or dates of shipments have not been fixed clearly, hence the quotation was considered as an invitation to treat and not a valid offer.

Postal Rule

Answer:

Definition
It is a contract law rule which makes an exception to the general rule that acceptance is effective only when received. This is when the acceptance becomes effective when a letter is sent for a reply from the other party regardless if it reaches the other party or not. The postal rule was created when two parties communicating from a distance could not know if there was a contract formed at the exact same time.
However, there are also exceptions to this rule. If it is stated in the contract that acceptance is only effective when the letter is received by the other party, then the general postal rule cannot be applied. This general postal rule does not apply to offers or offer revocations as the acceptance is only effective when received.

Case Example: Adams v Lindsell
2nd September: The defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff on offering to sell him wool and requested the plaintiff to reply by post.
5th September: The plaintiff replied back.
8th September: The defendant sold the wool to another person as he did not receive any letter from the plaintiff.
9th September: Reply letter from the plaintiff reached the defendant on this date.
Hence, the plaintiff sued the defendant.
Judgement: Acceptance was effective when the letter was sent out and thus, there was a contract formed.

Case Example: Byrne v Van Tienhoven
1st October: The defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff on offering to sell him tin plates.
8th October: The defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff on the offer revocation.
11th October: The plaintiff received the first letter by the defendant and accepted the offer by telegram.
15th October: The plaintiff accepted the offer by mail.
20th October: The plaintiff received the offer revocation letter.
Hence, the plaintiff decided to sue the defendant.
Judgement: The general postal rule does not apply to offer revocations, hence the revocation is not effective until it is received. The offer cannot be revoked as well after acceptance. Hence, the defendant was deemed to have breached the contract.

Under what circumstances will the offer be terminated?

Answer:

Introduction
An offer is only temporary and will be terminated when the time comes. After the termination of the offer, the offer cannot be accepted anymore. Some ways of offer termination are revocation and offer lapse.
Revocation
An offer can be terminated by revocation before it is accepted. However, it is only effective when the offer revocation is communicated to the offeree.

Case Example: Byrne v Van Tienhoven
1st October: The defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff on offering to sell him tin plates.
8th October: The defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff on the offer revocation.
11th October: The plaintiff received the first letter by the defendant and accepted the offer by telegram.
15th October: The plaintiff accepted the offer by mail.
20th October: The plaintiff received the offer revocation letter.
Hence, the plaintiff decided to sue the defendant.
Judgement: Revocation is only effective on the 20th October as revocation is considered to be effective only when it is received. Since the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s offer by this date, there is a contract formed. Hence, the defendant was deemed to have breached the contract as the offer cannot be revoked after acceptance.

Offer lapse
Offers can have a time limit whereby they are open only for a period of time. If an offer is accepted after the time limit has passed, there is no contract formed as the offer has already been terminated. Depending on the facts of each case, different offers would have a different reasonable time limit.
Case Example: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore
June: The defendant applied for some shares from the plaintiff’s company.
November: The plaintiff company allotted the shares to the defendant on this month where the shares value have dropped.
Hence, the defendant refused to purchase the shares.
Judgement: The defendant’s offer had been terminated by the lapse of time, hence there was no contract formed.