PYQ 2022/2023
Whether the display of football jerseys in store amounts to an ITT.
In Fisher v Bell, the defendant was charged with offering for sale a flick-knife in his shop
window that was against the law. The court held that according to the contract law, the display of
an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. Hence, the
defendant had not technically ‘offered’ the knives for sale, but it was the customers who were
making the offers.
In the present case, the display of football jerseys is an ITT and only the customer can offer to
buy the jerseys. Hence, only Kenny can offer to buy the jersey by taking the jersey to the counter.
Then, Karen accepts the offer by accepting payment by Kenny.
In conclusion, the display of football jerseys in stores amounts to an ITT. Hence, Karen cannot
stop Kenny from leaving the store.
Whether Roger’s reply amounts to a counter offer.
Roger replies to Kenny by offering to buy the camera at a lower price and with new conditions,
which includes a professional cleaning service and replacement of the neck strap. This amounts
to a counter offer as it varies from the initial offer by Kenny. A counter offer destroys the initial
offer so Roger cannot sue Kenny for selling the camera to another person.
,Definition of defamation:
Defamation is the publication of a statement, which exposes a man to hatred, ridicule or
contempt or causes him to be shunned or avoided by right thinking members of society. It is also
a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation
of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The statement
in defamation need not impute a misconduct or moral turpitude. Thus, a statement which shows
the plaintiff as merely ridiculous may be defamatory. A defamatory statement may be in the form
of carvings, paintings or gestures. It is also immaterial whether anyone believed the statement.
Elements of defamation:
Firstly, the statement must be defamatory in nature. In Sim v Stretch, upon the maid’s
arrival, the defendant sent the following telegram to the plaintiff : “E. has resumed her service
with us today. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed, also her wages to …”
The plaintiff sued for libel, arguing that the telegram was defamatory as they implied that the
plaintiff had financial difficulties (e.g. that he was forced to borrow, failed to pay the maid’s
wages, etc.) Lord Atkin applied a test: “would the words tends to lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?” The court held that the defendant’s
words were found not to be reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. In Datuk Abdul
Ghapur Hj. Salleh v Ch’ng Boon Heng, it was held that words published in a newspaper article
which mentioned that the plaintiff was involved in securing government projects were capable of
defamatory meaning as such words were calculated to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or
contempt in the mind of a reasonable man or would tend to lower him in the estimation of
right-thinking members of society generally. In Syed Husin Ali v Syarikat Penchetakan
Utusan Melayu Bhd & Anor, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to
excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes it to be true.
The typical type of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing
crime, dishonesty, untruthfulness, ingratitude and cruelty.
, Secondly, the statement must refer to the plaintiff. In St James Evening Post (Roach v
Garvan), the courts found that even feigned names can be construed to be defamatory. In Abdul
Khalid Bakar Shah v Parti Islam Se Malaysia & Ors, the court held that it is not necessary for
the plaintiff to be referred to by name. The test is whether reasonable persons acquainted with the
plaintiff will recognise that the plaintiff is referred to.
Thirdly, the statement must be published. In Bata v Bata, publication is the
communication of the words to at least 1 person other than the person defamed. In Adam v
Ward, the court found that from the mere publication of defamatory matter malice is imputed,
unless the publication was on what is called privileged occasion.
Type of defamation:
The type of defamation involved is libel. This is because the defamatory content is published in
the form of articles and videos which is in permanent form and is visible to the eye. Even if the
articles and videos are deleted by the publisher, they can still circulate online as people may have
downloaded the content beforehand.
In conclusion, Raub Australian Gold Mine S/B can sue Malaysiakini for defamation as the
articles and videos posted suggested that the company’s gold mining causes pollution. However,
Malaysiakini can raise the defence of justification and qualified privilege if the allegations about
the pollution is in fact true.
Since Kyle murdered a 14 years old boy and is charged under S302 of the Penal Code, this is a
criminal case.
According to S 22 of CJA, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear all criminal cases and pass
any sentence. But in practice, the High Court hears cases which the Sessions Court has no
jurisdiction. According to S 63 of SCA, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to hear all cases
except those punishable with death. According to S 64 of SCA, the Sessions Court has
jurisdiction to pass any sentence except the death penalty.
Whether the display of football jerseys in store amounts to an ITT.
In Fisher v Bell, the defendant was charged with offering for sale a flick-knife in his shop
window that was against the law. The court held that according to the contract law, the display of
an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. Hence, the
defendant had not technically ‘offered’ the knives for sale, but it was the customers who were
making the offers.
In the present case, the display of football jerseys is an ITT and only the customer can offer to
buy the jerseys. Hence, only Kenny can offer to buy the jersey by taking the jersey to the counter.
Then, Karen accepts the offer by accepting payment by Kenny.
In conclusion, the display of football jerseys in stores amounts to an ITT. Hence, Karen cannot
stop Kenny from leaving the store.
Whether Roger’s reply amounts to a counter offer.
Roger replies to Kenny by offering to buy the camera at a lower price and with new conditions,
which includes a professional cleaning service and replacement of the neck strap. This amounts
to a counter offer as it varies from the initial offer by Kenny. A counter offer destroys the initial
offer so Roger cannot sue Kenny for selling the camera to another person.
,Definition of defamation:
Defamation is the publication of a statement, which exposes a man to hatred, ridicule or
contempt or causes him to be shunned or avoided by right thinking members of society. It is also
a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation
of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The statement
in defamation need not impute a misconduct or moral turpitude. Thus, a statement which shows
the plaintiff as merely ridiculous may be defamatory. A defamatory statement may be in the form
of carvings, paintings or gestures. It is also immaterial whether anyone believed the statement.
Elements of defamation:
Firstly, the statement must be defamatory in nature. In Sim v Stretch, upon the maid’s
arrival, the defendant sent the following telegram to the plaintiff : “E. has resumed her service
with us today. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed, also her wages to …”
The plaintiff sued for libel, arguing that the telegram was defamatory as they implied that the
plaintiff had financial difficulties (e.g. that he was forced to borrow, failed to pay the maid’s
wages, etc.) Lord Atkin applied a test: “would the words tends to lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?” The court held that the defendant’s
words were found not to be reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. In Datuk Abdul
Ghapur Hj. Salleh v Ch’ng Boon Heng, it was held that words published in a newspaper article
which mentioned that the plaintiff was involved in securing government projects were capable of
defamatory meaning as such words were calculated to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or
contempt in the mind of a reasonable man or would tend to lower him in the estimation of
right-thinking members of society generally. In Syed Husin Ali v Syarikat Penchetakan
Utusan Melayu Bhd & Anor, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to
excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes it to be true.
The typical type of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing
crime, dishonesty, untruthfulness, ingratitude and cruelty.
, Secondly, the statement must refer to the plaintiff. In St James Evening Post (Roach v
Garvan), the courts found that even feigned names can be construed to be defamatory. In Abdul
Khalid Bakar Shah v Parti Islam Se Malaysia & Ors, the court held that it is not necessary for
the plaintiff to be referred to by name. The test is whether reasonable persons acquainted with the
plaintiff will recognise that the plaintiff is referred to.
Thirdly, the statement must be published. In Bata v Bata, publication is the
communication of the words to at least 1 person other than the person defamed. In Adam v
Ward, the court found that from the mere publication of defamatory matter malice is imputed,
unless the publication was on what is called privileged occasion.
Type of defamation:
The type of defamation involved is libel. This is because the defamatory content is published in
the form of articles and videos which is in permanent form and is visible to the eye. Even if the
articles and videos are deleted by the publisher, they can still circulate online as people may have
downloaded the content beforehand.
In conclusion, Raub Australian Gold Mine S/B can sue Malaysiakini for defamation as the
articles and videos posted suggested that the company’s gold mining causes pollution. However,
Malaysiakini can raise the defence of justification and qualified privilege if the allegations about
the pollution is in fact true.
Since Kyle murdered a 14 years old boy and is charged under S302 of the Penal Code, this is a
criminal case.
According to S 22 of CJA, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear all criminal cases and pass
any sentence. But in practice, the High Court hears cases which the Sessions Court has no
jurisdiction. According to S 63 of SCA, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to hear all cases
except those punishable with death. According to S 64 of SCA, the Sessions Court has
jurisdiction to pass any sentence except the death penalty.
