EXERCSE Law of Negligence

1. Which of the following relate to tort?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Include any civil wrong

Have award of damages as the legal remedy
Does include breaches of contract
All of above

2. Which of the following is not true in respect of the law of tort?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Defendant has suffered loss/injury

Plaintiff has breached his duty of care to the defendant
Defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff
None of the above

3. Which of following is not relevant in establishing negligence

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

There is a contractual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant

The defendant failed to show the required standard of care
The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
The defendant did not intend to harm the plaintiff

4. In an action in negligence, how much care must the defendant has shown to avoid
breaching the required standard of care?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

The amount of care the plaintiff would himself have shown

The amount of care the defendant actually shown
The amount of care the defendants lawyer would have shown
The amount of care a reasonable man would have shown

5. Which of the following is not the test for establishing negligence?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Reasonable foreseeable risk of injury

Case analogous to decided case.
Sufficient close neighbourhood relation.
None of above

6. Which of the following is relevant to establishing a duty of care for negligence?

(a) Determine whether or not a reasonable foreseeable risk of injury existed
(b) Determine whether or not the case before the court is analogous to previous cases
in which a duty of care has been found to exist
(c) Determine whether a sufficiently close neighbourhood relationship exists to
justify a duty of care
(d) All of above

7. The case Donoghue v Stevenson is associated with:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Contributory negligence
Duty of care for negligent acts
Value of defendants conduct
Remoteness of loss

8. Which of the following relationship would give rise to a duty of care?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Yusof, an employer and Ali, an employee of Yusof

Sidek, a driver of a motor vehicle, and Alias, another road user
Siti, a doctor, and Asiah, her patient
All of above

9. Which of following is a requirement for establishing duty of care in negligent advice?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

The advice must be true and correct

It was reasonable for the recipient to act on the advice
The recipient paid for the advice
The advice giver does realize or ought to realize recipient would act on advice

10. What is the standard of care expected in a negligent case?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

That of a reasonable man

The care that the plaintiff would himself have shown
The care that the defendant actually shown
None of above

11. Salleh was knocked down by a motor cyclist and suffered bruises on the arm, but later
was crushed by a lorry and suffered head injury. Which of the following might the
motor cyclist use to argue that he was not liable for Sallehs head injury?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Egg shell skull rule

Novus actus interviens
Once and all rule
Pedestrian beware

12. The defendant, to show the plaintiff was partly liable for his injury, must show:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

The plaintiff has been contributory negligent

The plaintiff does not assume risk
The plaintiff is not aware of risk
None of above

13. The but for test can be used in negligence cases to establish:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Proximity
Reasonable foreseeability
Causation
All of above

14. What is the standard of proof in a negligent case?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Beyond reasonable doubt

On balance of probabilities
Beyond all doubt
Beyond all probabilities

15. Plaintiff suffered injuries in his back due to the negligence of the defendant. The
plaintiff, because of his pre-existing back problem, suffered more injury than a
healthy person. The defendant must compensate him to the full extent of his injuries
under:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

The reasonable plaintiff rule

The egg shell skull rule
The causation rule
The standard of care rule

16. In an action in negligence what must the plaintiff prove to show the defendant was
negligent?
17. In an action in negligence what are the defences available to the defendant to show
that he was wholly or partly not liable for the plaintiffs loss or injury?
18. In an action for negligent advice, what must the plaintiff prove to show that the
defendant was liable in negligence?
19. In an action in negligence what guideline is available to determine whether the
required standard of care has been met?
20. What are the remedies available to a plaintiff if he succeeded in his action in
negligence against the defendant?
_____________________

Question
On 1 Jan, Mansor wrote to Fuzi to sell his Acer laptop for RM1000. On the same day, Fuzi
wrote to Mansor to buy his Acer laptop for RM1000. Their letter reached each other on 6 Jan.
Later on 8 Jan, Fuzi wrote to Mansor to ask the model of his laptop. On 12 Jan, when Mansor
received Fuzis letter, he wrote to him to inform him that his laptop was a Model 2020. On 18
Jan, when Fuzi received Mansors reply, he wrote to him to buy his laptop for RM800. On the
same day, in the afternoon,Mansor changed his mind and he wrote to tell Fuzi he would not
sell his laptop anymore. Mansors letter, of the afternoon of 18 Jan, was received by Fuzi on
24 Jan. On 23 Jan, Fuzi wrote to Mansor to tell him he wanted to buy his laptop for RM1000
and his letter was received by Mansor on 28 Jan. But Mansor did not reply.
Explain whether there is a contract between them supporting your answer with reference to
the law.
Answer guide
The issue is whether there was a contract made between Mansor and Fuzi. If there was then
what is its consequence.
On 1 Jan, Mansor wrote to Fuzi to sell his Acer laptop for RM1000. Mansor has made an
offer: s 2(a) CA 1950 to sell his laptop to Fuzi. His offer was absolute but at the time of
posting Fuzi has not received his letter yet. Therefore, the communication of the offer is not
complete as required under s 4(1). On the same day, Fuzi wrote to Mansor to buy his laptop
for RM1000. Fuzi has made an absolute offer to Mansor to buy his his laptop. But Mansor
has not yet received his offer letter because it was still in the post. The communication of his
offer was incomplete: s 4(1). On that day there were two offers, one from Mansor to Fuzito
sell his laptop and the other from Fuzi to Mansor to buy his laptop.Their offers crossed each
other in the post. In Tinn v Hoffman the court held that cross offer does not end in a contract
because the parties are unaware of each others offers.
On 6 Jan, they received each others letters. On 8 Jan, Fuzi wrote to Mansor to ask the model
of his laptop. Fuzi was not making an offer or an acceptance but he was making an inquiry as
to the model of Mansors laptop. An inquiry for more information does not lead to any
contract was held in Harvey v Facey. On 12 Jan, when Mansor received Fuzis letter, he
wrote to inform him that his laptop was a Model 2020. Again Mansor was not making an
offer or an acceptance but he was only giving more information about his laptop. So until
then there was no contract made between them.
On 18 Jan, when Fuzi received Mansors letter, he wrote to buy his laptop for RM800.
Mansor has made an offer to Fuzi to sell his laptop for RM1000 and Fuzi in reply said he
would buy his laptop for RM800. Fuzi was, therefore, making a counter offer to Mansor. In:
Hyde v Wrench the court held that when a counter offer is made to an offer, the offeree has
rejected the offer and introduced a new offer resulting in no contract being made between the
parties. For there to be an acceptance it must be absolute an unqualified: s 7(a) CA 1950.

On the same day, 18 Jan, Mansor wrote to Fuzi to revoke his offer. Mansors revocation is
only effective when it is received by Fuzi: s 5(2). This means Fuzi was only aware of
Mansors revocation on 24 Jan when he received that letter.
On 23 Jan, Fuzi wrote to Mansor to buy his laptop for RM1000. As Mansors earlier offer had
been rejected by Fuzi, there has been no contract made between them. Fuzis offer of the 23
Jan is, therefore, a new offer to Mansor. An offer must be absolute and unqualified. It must be
communicated.The communication of that offer is complete when it comes to the knowledge
of the offeree. s 4(1). Mansor was, therefore, only aware of Fuzis offer on 28 Jan. Since there
was no reply of acceptance from Mansor to Fuzis offer, there was no contract made between
them.
In conclusion, there was no contract made between Mansor and Fuzi on the sale of his
laptop. Mansor cannot be liable to Fuzi even if Fuzi was to take legal action to claim damages
from him.