The issue:Vấn đề ở đây là việc mua

The issue:
Vấn đề ở đây là việc mua bán cửa hàng của Robert đối với hai khách hàng là Joshue và James. xảy ra vấn đề khi Robert đồng ý bán cho James với giá RM9.5, nhưng trước đó Joshue có ý định mua cửa hàng với giá thấp hơn RM10 mà Robert không đồng ý. Khi nghe được từ người ngoài Robert đã bán cửa hang với giá RM9.5 Joshue muốn kiện Robert. Theo trường hợp này, có hai vấn đề cần thảo luân:
Thứ nhất là: “có hợp đồng giữa Robert và Joshue không?”
Thứ hail à :” Joshue có thể kiện được Robert về việc mua bán cửa hàng không?”

Law and application:
Ngày 5 tháng 5 năm 2007 khi Robert gọi cho Joshue nói bán cửa hàng với giá RM10, đây là một lời đề nghị. Theo hợp đồng ACT 1950 có quy định đây là hợp đồng vì ở điều s2 (a) có viết : “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 a proposal”.
Sau khi đưa ra lời đề nghị của mình, Robert nhận được phản hồi của Joshue:” The price is a bit expensive. Is it possible to reduce the price a bit because I do not have enough money to pay the deposit as I just bought a new car?”. Đây không phải là sự chấp nhận mua của joshue mà là một lời đề nghị mới của ông. Như theo điều luật s2(b) :” 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.” Ngoài ra, chấp nhận là phải theo điều s7(a) “in oder to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.” Theo đó, Joshue thì ngược lại, không đủ tiêu chuẩn và qualified.
Phả ứng của Joshue về lời đề nghị của Robert ngày 5.5 lại là một lời đề nghị mới, nó được gọi là Counter-offer. Điều này được nói đến trong luật S6(c) :” a proposal is revoked by the failure of the acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent to acceptance.” . và ở đây Joshue là người đưa ra đề nghị và Robert là người nhận.
Sau khi nhận được phản hồi của Joshue về việc cửa hàng giá hơi cao và không đủ tiền thì Robert đã trả lời Joshue rằng :” I believe the price is not negotiable as I offered it lower than the market value. The market value is RM11 million.” Theo Robert thì giá RM10 là thấp hơn so với giá thị trường lúc đó và không đồng ý với đề nghị mà Joshue đưa ra.
Sau đó, Joshue không có phản hồi gì về sự không chấp nhận việc giảm giá của Robert. Cả hai không liên lạc và thoả thuận thêm điều gì. Không có sự chấp nhận hay thoả thuận mua bán ở đây, điều đó có nghĩa là giữa Robert và Joshue không có hợp đồng pháp lí mua bán nào cả.
Ngày 7.5 Robert gửi một lời đề nghị đến James về việc bán cửa hàng của mình :” Robert sent a SMS (short message service) to James offering him the same shop at the price of RM9.5 million.”. đây là lời đề nghị tới James từ Robert. Vì cửa hàng được James quan tâm nên khi nhận được tin nhắn từ Robert thì James đã nhắn tin trả lời đồng ý. Tin nhắn xem như sự chấp nhận của james về lời đề nghị của Robert. Sự chấp nhận này có thể xem như hợp đồng. Theo điều s2(a) , s2(b) thì giữa Robert và James từ đây đã có hợp đồng pháp lí. James đã có quyền mua cửa hang của Robert.
Sau đó, ngày 7.8 khi đi ăn sáng Joshue đã nghe được Robert bán cửa hàng cho James. Ngay hôm sau, Joshua đã gọi cho Robert và đề cập đến việc mua cửa hàng nhưng Robert từ chối vì đã bán :” Joshua called Robert to discuss on the sale and purchase agreement. Robert told him that he had sold it to James as he thought Joshua was not interested anymore.” Vấn đề ở đây là Joshue muốn kiện Robert và muốn tư vấn có kiện được robert hay không. Theo như phân tích ở trên, khi Robert đưa ra offer, thì Joshua gửi lại counter-offer chứ không đồng ý, vậy nên giữa hai người không có hợp đồng, không có ràng buộc pháp lí. Vậy nên Robert sẽ không phải chịu trách nhiệm trước pháp luật nếu Joshua kiện.
Giả sử Joshue có thể kiện được Robert:
nếu Joshua kiên quyết muốn kiện Robert thì có thể Robert chịu trách nhiệm trước pháp luật. vì khi gửi lời đề nghị tới Joshue, Robert không đưa ra thời hạn. Khi các cửa hàng đã được bán cho James, đề nghị thực hiện để Joshua bị thu hồi. Theo s.5 (1) CA 1950, một đề nghị có thể bị thu hồi bất cứ lúc nào trước khi truyền thụ của nó là hoàn tất. Kể từ khi Joshua đã không chấp nhận lời đề nghị nào, Robert có thể thu hồi phục vụ miễn là Robert là chủ sở hữu của cửa hàng. Tuy nhiên, Robert đã làm sai nơi ông đã không gửi thông báo thu hồi tới Joshua. Theo s.6 (a) CA 1950, một đề nghị được thu hồi bởi các thông tin liên lạc thông báo thu hồi của người đề nghị cho bên kia. Do đó, đề nghị không được thu hồi và đề nghị vẫn còn mở. Nếu Robert đang rút đề nghị của ông, ông đã thông báo cho Giô-suê rằng ông đang rút đề nghị này. Nếu dựa theo trên, khi Joshue chấp nhận yêu cầu của Robert thì đây vẫn là sự chấp nhận có hiệu lực vì Robert không đưa ra thời hạn cho lời đề nghị của mình và không báo cho Joshua đã hết thời hạn chấp nhận.

conclusion:
nói chung, giữa Robert và Joshua không có hợp đồng và

Kết quả (Anh) 1:

The issue:The problem here is that the sales of the store of Robert for two clients is Joshue and James. the problem occurs when Robert agreed to the sale for 9.5 RM price James, but earlier Joshue intends to buy the store with low prices than RM10 that Robert disagrees. When hearing from people outside the cave door was selling price Robert RM 9.5 Joshue wants to sue Robert. Under this scenario, there are two issues to draft Chou:The first is: "is there a contract between Robert and Joshue?"Minor hail à: "Joshue can sue was Robert on the sales of the store?"Law and application:On May 5, 2007 when Robert call for sale price shop says Joshue RM10, here is a suggestion. According to the contracts ACT 1950 stated this is because contracts in article s2 (a) has written: "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 act or to the abstinence, he is said to make a proposal". After putting out his proposal, Robert getting feedback of Joshue: "The price is a bit expensive. Is it possible to reduce the price a bit because I do not have enough money to pay the deposit as I just bought a new car? ". This is not the accepted purchase of joshue which is a new proposal. As according to the law of the s2 (b): "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." In addition, acceptance is a must according to s7 (a) "in oder to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified." Accordingly, Joshue, unqualified and qualified. Pedigree of Joshue about suggestions of Robert on 5.5 is a new proposal, it is called a Counter-offer. This is mentioned in law S6 (c): "a proposal is revoked by the failure of the acceptor to fulfil a condition precedent to acceptance.". and here is the proposal Joshue and Robert is the recipient. After receiving feedback on the shop price Joshue slightly higher and not enough money, Robert replied: "I believe that Joshue the price is not negotiable as I offered it lower than the market value. The market value is RM11 million. " According to Robert, the price of RM10 is lower than the market price at the time and did not agree with that proposal Joshue launched. Then, Joshue no feedback whatsoever about not accepting the discount of Robert. Both incoherent and deals more. No acceptance or agreement to purchase here, that means between Robert and Joshue no legal contracts traded. 7.5 day Robert sent a proposal to James about the sale of his shop: "Robert sent a SMS (short message service) to James offering him the same shop at the price of RM 9.5 million.". Here are my suggestions to James from Robert. Because the store is James concerned upon receiving a message from Robert James has answered a message agree. Message viewed as james's acceptance of the offer by Robert. This acceptance can be viewed as a contract. According to s2, s2 (a) (b), between Robert and James from here have had legal contracts. James had the right to buy Robert's Cave door. Later on, when the breakfast ride 7.8 Joshue heard Robert sale store for James. Next day, Joshua called Robert and refers to the purchase of the store but Robert refused because sold: "Joshua called Robert to discuss on the sale and purchase agreement. Robert told him that he had sold it to James as he thought Joshua was not interested anymore. " The problem here is that Robert wants to sue Joshue and want to have a consultation event is robert or not. According to the analysis above, when Robert put out the offer, then Joshua sent back counter-offer not agree, so between the two there is no contract, no legal binding. So Robert will not be responsible before the law if Joshua event. Suppose Joshue can sue was Robert:If Joshua resolutely want to sue Robert can Robert be responsible before the law. because when to unluckily Joshue, Robert does not make the deadline. When the store was sold to James, recommendations made to Joshua recovered. According to s. 5 (1) CA 1950, an offer can be withdrawn at any time prior to its transmission is complete. Since Joshua has not accepted the proposal, Robert can recall serves as long as Robert is the owner of the shop. However, Robert did wrong where he did not send notice of the revocation to Joshua. Under s. 6 (a) CA 1950, a proposal was revoked by the communication of the revocation notice suggested for the other party. Therefore, the proposal is not withdrawn and the proposal remains open. If Robert is withdrawing his proposal, he informed Joseph that he is suê to withdraw this proposal. If based on the above, when accepting the request of Robert Joshue then here is still the acceptance has effect because Robert did not give a time limit for its proposal and did not report it to Joshua have expiry of acceptance. conclusion:in General, between Robert and Joshua no contract and

Kết quả (Anh) 2:

The issue:
The issue here is the sale of Robert shop for two customers is Joshue and James. problem occurred when Robert agreed to sell for James to RM9.5 price, but earlier Joshue store intending to buy at a lower price RM10 Robert disagree. When Robert heard from people outside the shop sold for RM9.5 Joshue want to sue Robert. Under this scenario, there are two issues to be discussed:
The first is: "a contract between Robert and Joshue not?"
First hail à "can Joshue Robert events on store purchases it?" Law and application: May 5, 2007 when Robert called for Joshue talking shop selling price RM10, here is a suggestion. ACT 1950 Under the contract provisions because this is a contract in which s2 (a) has written: "when one person to another signifies HIS Willingness to abstain from doing so or to anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of other có to the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. " After giving their suggestions, Robert received feedback Joshue:" the price is a bit expensive. Is It Possible to Reduce the price a bit Because I do not have enough money to pay the deposit as I just Bought a new car? ". This is not the buyer of joshue accept an offer that is his new. As in Rule s2 (b): "Whom khi person to the proposal is made ​​signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, khi accepted, Becomes a promise." In addition, acceptance is a must under s7 (a) "in oder to convert a proposal Into a promise the absolute and unqualified acceptance phải." Accordingly, Joshue the contrary, unqualified and qualified. Joshue Pha's response to the offer of Robert day 5.5 is a new proposal, it is called Counter-offer. This is mentioned in the law S6 (c): "a proposal is Revoked by the failure of the acceptor to a condition precedent to acceptance fulfil.". and here Joshue who made ​​the offer, and Robert is the receiver. After receiving feedback on the store Joshue slightly higher prices and not enough money, Joshue Robert replied that: "I believe the price is not negotiable Offered as I lower it the market value of coal. The market value is RM11 million. "According to Robert, the RM10 price is lower than the market price at the time and did not agree with the proposal that Joshue given. Then Joshue no feedback about the unacceptable Robert discounts. Both contacts and agreements not add anything. No acceptance or sales agreement here, that means that between Robert and Joshue no legal contract purchase at all. On 7.5 Robert sent an offer to James on the sale of its stores "Robert sent a SMS (short message service) to the same shop, photographing James offering price of RM9.5 million at.". Here are suggestions to James from Robert. Because the store is James so concerned after receiving the message from Robert James texted respondents agreed. Messages considered as acceptance of the offer by james on Robert. This acceptance can be considered as a contract. According to s2 (a), s2 (b) is between Robert and James from here has a legal contract. James had the right to buy the cave of Robert. Then you go to breakfast 7.8 days Joshue heard Robert sale store for James. The next day, Joshua was called to Robert and refers to the purchase of the store, but Robert refused for sale: "Joshua Robert to Discuss gọi and purchase agreement on the sale. Robert Had Told him he sold it to có as he thought James was not interested anymore Joshua. "The problem here is suing Robert and wanted Joshue counseling robert event or not. As analyzed above, when Robert made ​​offer, then counter-offer Joshua resubmit not agree, so between them there is no contract, there is no legal binding. So Robert will not be liable under the law if Joshua conditions. Assuming Joshue can sue Robert: if Joshua resolutely wants to sue Robert Robert may be responsible before the law. because sending suggestions to Joshue, Robert did not make the deadline. When the store was sold to James, it is recommended to Joshua revoked. Under s.5 (1) CA 1950, a proposal may be withdrawn at any time before its transmitting completed. Since Joshua had not accepted the offer yet, Robert can be recovered as long as Robert served as the owner of the store. However, Robert made ​​a mistake which he did not send recall notices to Joshua. According s.6 (a) CA 1950, a proposal was withdrawn by the communication of the withdrawal notice to the other proposals. Therefore, the proposal is not withdrawn and the proposal is still open. If Robert was withdrawing his proposal, he had informed Joshua that he was withdrawing the proposal. If based on the above, while Joshue accepted the request of Robert, this is still the effective acceptance because Robert did not give a timeframe for their suggestions and do not tell Joshua acceptance has expired. Conclusion: in general, between Robert and Joshua no contract and