8/12/2019 Answer toAnswer to the question

1/3

Answer to the question: 01

Discussion and Findings

Having considered the facts adduced by the prates to the suit it appears as

follows:-

1. Book House is a very well known publisher of books. It also has a sellcounter in Dhaka.

2. Mr. Habib went to Book House on 5th of October, 2010 to purchase somebooks.

3. Mr. Habib found a rare publication, a book on Philosophy. The price waswritten on the Book was 500.00 Taka.

4. Mr. Habib placed the book at the counter and got his wallet out to pay theprice for the book.

5. The gentleman behind the counter said to Mr. Habib, they are not selling thisbook.

6. Habib had to come out of the Book House without buying the book.Given the facts stated above the judgment is given as under.

Existence of the Contract:

The Contract Act 1872 regulates contractual affairs of the parties there to within Bangladesh. It is

an offer. An offer involves the making of a proposal. The term proposal is defined in the Contract

Act as follows: when one party signifies to another hiswillingness to do or to abstain from doing

anything with a view to obtaining to assent of that other to such act or abstinence he is said to make

a proposal and the acceptance is when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his

assent thereto the proposal is said to accepted.

In this case Book House displayed the rare book of philosophy and they didnt sell the book.

They said that this is the last copy and they didnt displayed in front of this book is that it is not

for sale. So Habib was took the book for buying. Because there is an offer to sale the book and he

is accepted this offer.

For that reason Habib is suit against Book House on the ground that Book House acted in

breach of contract. So the question is is Habib right?

Offer & Invitation to Treat:

In this case Book House displayed the rare book of philosophy because they invited to the

people that they are buying that book and the person who will buy this book has to offered the

Book House that the individual person is interested to buy this book. So Book House isgiving the invitation to the buyers to offer. If they or Book House accept this offer they are

selling this book.

Order:

8/12/2019 Answer toAnswer to the question

2/3

Book House: has not breach the contract and they are not guilty.

Answer to the question: 02

Discussion and Findings

Having considered the facts adduced by the prates to the suit it appears as follows:-

1. It is not a contract, it is an offer.2. This offer are declared on 15th October 2012 at about 9.00 am3. This offer is for all people.4. Mr. Abdul Kuddus send information on 14thOctober 2012.5. This information is received by the OC of Dhanmondi Police Station at 2:00 pm.

Given the facts stated above the judgment is given as under:

Existence of the Contract:

The Contract Act 1872 regulates contractual affairs of the parties there to within Bangladesh. It

is an offer. An offer involves the making of a proposal. The term proposal is defined in theContract Act as follows: when one party signifies to anotherhis willingness to do or to abstain

from doing anything with a view to obtaining to assent of that other to such act or abstinence he

is said to make a proposal.

In this case on the 15th

October 2010 a handbill was circulated on that hand bill it was declared

that an award of 100000 taka to which people who is given information about the Shahin and hisassociates. But the Abdul Kuddus send the information by the constable about Shahin and his

associates on 15

th

October. On that letter the date was 14

th

October. So when the information isgoing to Dhanmondi Police station the hand bill was circulated than. For that reason Dhanmondi

police station didnt give the award to Mr. Abdul Kuddus and he is suit against the Dhanmondi

police station for the reward. Is the reward given to the Abdul Kuddus?

Communication:

The offer is circulated on 15th

October and Mr. Abdul Kuddus send the information at 15th

October but in the letter the date was 14th

October. So the there is no acceptance before the offer

in the law. He is accepting the offer before the offer is circulated.

Order:

Mr. Abdul Kuddus doesnt win the award because he is given the information before the offer.

8/12/2019 Answer toAnswer to the question

3/3

Answer to the question no: 03

Discussion & Findings:

Having considered the facts adduced by the parties to the suit it appears as followings:

1. Rafiq entered into a contract with Milk Haat.2. In this contract Milk Haat supplies Rafiq 30 kilogram of milk at taka 25 per kilogram.3. The daily turnover of the Rafiqs factorys is taka 1000.4. On the 10th Octobers contract Rafiq didnt tell the Milk Haat about anything of this

contract.

5. On the 12thOctober Milk Haat without any justification faild to supply the milk under thecontract.

6. Rafiq suit against Milk Haat for breach of contract and seeking damages and also for theloss of contract.

Given the facts stated above the judgment is given as under:

Existence of Contract:

The Contract Act 1872 regulates contractual affairs of the parties there to within Bangladesh.

The act provides that all agreements that are enforceable by law are contract. In this contract

Rafiq runs a factory which produce milk based product. On the 10th

October he entered into a

contract with Holly Child which he gives sweets to them at 12th

October but the milk producer

company cannot supply the milk on that day. For that reason the contract is broken.

According to the Contract Act 1872, Rafiq can suit for the damages of normal profit 1000 takabecause it is an actual breach of contract. It means that breach of contract occurs when during

the performance of contract or at the time when the performance of the contract is due; one

party either fails or refuses to perform his obligations under the contract. But Rafiq is also suit

for the lost of contract with Holly Child. Is that recoverable?

Actual Breach of Contract:

In this law Milk Haat gives the normal damages of 12th

October taka 1000 and the lost of

contract with Holly Child taka 1000 is not given by the Milk Haat. Because he is not liable for

that and he didnt know about the contract between Rafiq and Holly Child.

Order:

The Milk Haat company has to recover the price of the normal profit as damages, the breach of

contract with Rafiq taka 1000.