The application states that Johari offered Ben to buy his yacht, Thunder for RM2 million, by sending a letter to Ben, but Johari wanted to revoke the offer he made. Meanwhile, Ben immediately sent Johari a letter agreeing that he wanted to buy the yacht. The issue in the question is whether there is a binding contract between Ben and Johari and whether Ben can take legal action if Johari refuses to sell his yacht. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay An offer is a promise to exchange performance or something of value between two parties. In reference to Section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 "when one person expresses to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the consent of that other to the act or 'abstinence, is said to make a proposal' (Lee & Detta, 2011). An offer can be made orally or in writing (Lee & Detta, 2011). Offered is the person who accepts the offer can be made to a specific person or to the public Bilateral offer is an offer made to a specific person or a group of people (Krishnan, Rajoo & Vergis, 2009). ) The offeror must present certain terms in the offer and leave the decision of its acceptance or rejection to the offeree. The offer and the terms comprising it must be stated precisely and clearly while Ben is the oblate. The letter clearly stated that Johari is willing to sell his yacht, Thunder to Ben for RM2 million. The yacht is known as something of value in the offer between Johari and Ben. The offeror must communicate the offer to the offeree and the offeror must have actual knowledge of the offer otherwise the offer is invalid. Article 4(1) of the Contracts Law specifies that "communication of the proposal is complete when it comes to the attention of the person to whom it is presented". (Krishan, Rajoo, & Vergis, 2009). This is illustrated in the case of Taylor v Laird (1856). Where in that case, the plaintiff was employed to work as a captain of a ship owned by the defendant. In the course of the voyage, the plaintiff voluntarily stopped working as a captain and helped to return the ship to Britain as a normal member of the crew without informing the defendant of the changes in his employment position and wanted to claim wages for his work. The court held that the plaintiff could not do so because he did not notify the defendant of the offer to change jobs and the defendant does not have the option to accept or reject the offer. Therefore, there was no binding agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant (Krishan, Rajoo & Vergis, 2009). Section 3 of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that "communication of an offer or proposal is deemed to be made by any act or omission of the proposing party with whom it is intended to communicate the proposal or which has the effect of such communication". In the specified question, the mode of communication of the offer between Ben and Johari is by publishing a letter. Johari made an offer to sell his yacht to Ben and sent a letter to Ben on March 3. Effective communication occurs once Ben receives the offer letter from Johari. Section 2(b) of the Contracts Act 1950 states that 'when the person to whom the offer is made expresses his assent to the offer, the offer is said to have been accepted: and the offer, when accepted, becomes a promise.' (Krishnan, Rajoo and Vergis, 2009). To validate a contract, an acceptance by the recipient must be "absolute".qualified" as set out in Section 7(a) of the Contracts Act 1950. The offeree must accept and have actual knowledge of the offer. An acceptance must be an agreement to accept all terms included in the offer or otherwise it will be a counter-offer (Krishan, Rajoo and Vergis, 2009). Acceptance may be made orally or in writing. manner in which it is to be accepted (Lee & Detta, 2009). , insist that his proposal be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but if he does not do so, accept the acceptance”. states that “to the extent that the proposal or acceptance of a promise is made in words, the promise is said to be expressed. To the extent that the proposal or acceptance is not made in words, the promise is said to be implicit." (Krishan, Rajoo, & Vergis, 2009). This can be illustrated in the case of Felthouse v Bindley (1862). In this case, the plaintiff wanted to purchase a horse from his nephew but there was a negotiation about the price of the horse. After the argument, the actor sent a letter to his nephew stating that he would own the horse if he never heard from his nephew again. The nephew did not respond but, wanting to sell the horse to him, he asked the defendant, the auctioneer responsible for selling the cattle on behalf of the nephew, to keep the horse. However, the defendant accidentally sold the horse to a third party. The court held that there was no contract between the plaintiff and his nephew as no communication of acceptance of the offer had been made although his nephew intended to sell the horse (Richards, 1995). However, postal regulation may apply if acceptance is made by letter. Section 4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 provides that it is an exception to the general rule where the parties have contemplated the use of post as a means of communication (Lee & Detta, 2011). Actual acceptance occurs once the letter has been correctly addressed, stamped, placed in the letterbox and delivered to the post office. The contract is valid even if the letter of acceptance arrives late, is lost in the post or the offeror does not become aware of the acceptance. This can be illustrated in the case of Household Fire Insurance Company v. Grant (1879). In the event, the defendant submitted a written demand for shares of the plaintiff's company. The company subsequently sent a share allotment letter to the defendant, but the letter never reached the defendant. The company went bankrupt after three years and the liquidator demanded payment for the shares from the defendant. The court held that the postal regulation can be applied, the defendant was responsible for payment of the shares since acceptance occurred when the letter was posted and the valid contract exists even if the defendant did not receive the letter (Keenan, 2000 ). given the application, Ben sent a letter of acceptance on March 10th and the letter reached Johari on March 12th. Ben used the reasonable mode of communication of sending the letter, the same mode used by Johari. The Postal Rule can be applied because acceptance of the offer occurs by letter, acceptance occurs once the letter has been properly addressed, stamped, placed in the post office box and delivered to the post office. Therefore, the effective date.