a) Leslie went to Pick N Go Supermarket to buy some groceries. He saw a

poster in the supermarket that read "Buy 3 packs of Oceania tissue paper and

get 1 pack free". Leslie took 4 packs of Oceania tissue paper and went to the

payment counter. The cashier informed him that the promotion had already

ended and that he would have to pay for all 4 packets of the Oceania tissue

paper. Leslie then decided to not buy the tissue papers, but the cashier

insisted that he has to pay for all the 4 packs of the Oceania tissue paper.

Advise Leslie. (12 marks)

 

(b) On her way home from work, Dahlia's car had a flat tire. A bystander, Jay

assisted Dahlia to change the tire. Grateful for Jay's help, Dahlia promised to

pay RM100 to Jay. It has been a month and Dahlia has still not paid the

money to Jay.

Can Jay sue Dahlia for the money?

(a)      In the case scenario, there would be a need to consider that displays in supermarkets are invitations to treat as opposed to offers. Leslie is the one who makes an offer in this case by picking the goods off the shelf and presenting them at the counter for payment. The cashier is the one who accepts the offer. Leslie can therefore rely on the cases of Boots Cash Chemist to ascertain that displays in the windows of supermarkets are invitations to treat and that therefore there was no contract when Leslie decided not to make the offer.

(b)      Jay can sue Dahlia for the sum which was promised when he helped Dahlia to change her tyre if all the prerequisites of a contract are satisfied. It appears from the case that there was offer, acceptance and consideration. The issue of whether there was intention to create legal relations may, however, need the circumstances of the case to be considered (Networked Knowledge 2020). It appears that the agreement was a social agreement and, therefore, imposition of a rebuttable presumption may need the merits of the case to be considered individually.