'Commercial Law\r'

'ABDUL RASHID ABDUL MAJID v ISLAND GOLF PROPERTIES SDN BHD [1989] 3 MLJ 376 un publishze In this contingency, the issues is whether the plank was entitled to bill and cumulate fees known as development fees from members? PRINCIPLES The defendants owned, managed and operate a social golf club. Membership of the club is of the pursual types which are honorary membership, mean(a) membership, ordinary transferable membership, subscribing membership, institutional corporate membership, expatriate transferable membership, ordinary social membership, term membership and visiting membership.\r\n downstairs(a) the ascertain 3 of the club’s rules provided, disguise alia, that the club was a proprietary club, of which the defendants were the proprietors with a wit of directors responsible for the policies, anxiety and operation of the club. Rule 5 of the rules provided, inter alia, that all members shall non, by reason of his membership, be beneath either financial liabi lity remove for payment of his annual subscription and any otherwise sums collect under or levied under the rules and by laws to the defendants. The complainant is an ordinary transferable membership.\r\nThe plaintiff applied to pull in forth a member of the club by submitting the unavoidable cover form and duly executed a resolution contained in that locationin which states, inter alia, that he authorized and agreed that the board of the defendants had sole responsible for the policies, management and operation of the club with the indicant to increase grip fees and subscription and to levy and additional charges to meet expenditure and it excessively has the sole right to amend, vary, add to or develop such rules, equipment casualty and conditions of the club including the withdrawal or addition of benefits and privileges of members as if whitethorn in its supreme discretion deem necessary. 1| rogue The board sought to levy and collects the development fees pursu ant to its power under the rules. Rule 33 of the club’s rules provided, inter alia, that the board shall be the sole spot for the indication of the rules and by laws do there under and that the decision of the board shall be final and back on all members.\r\nThe principle that is under character 2 (a) of the agitates pretend 1950, a intention is do when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the bow of that other to such act or abstinence. Moreover, the proposition is invitation to lot which an invitation to make entreat, negotiate or deal and has no legal consequence and cannot be pass judgment to bring a weightlift into existence. The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it made which under Section 4(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. This means that an rear or proposal is effective once it is communicating to the offeree by the offer ee.\r\nBesides that, under Section 10 of the Contracts Act 1950 is already mention that all agreement are edit out if they are made by the free consent of occasionies competent to slue, for a lawful status and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. The accompaniment is similar in the case of Bomanji Ardeshir Wadia & Ors v writing table of State AIR (1929) PC 34 wherein it the decision of the Privy Council was said nothing is better colonized than that when parties have entered into a formal centralise that contract mustiness be construed according to its own terms and be explained or interpreted by the root word communing which led up to it. Another related case is Baker v Jones & Ors (1954) 2 All ER Lynskey J said that the contract is contained in, or to be implied from the rules. The begs must consider such a contract as they would consider any other contract.\r\nAlthough parties to a contract may in general, make any contract the y like, there are certain limitations oblige by public indemnity and one of those limitations may be that parties cannot, by contract, oust the ordinary courts from jurisdiction. 2|Page JUDGEMENT The court held that declaring that the defendants’ board was not entitled to levy and collects the fees because the plaintiff’s application for membership was merely a preliminary step. The offer for membership came from the defendants after they had considered the plaintiff’s application. The contract amid the plaintiff accepted the offer by making the payment of the entrance fees and the first subscription. Therefore, the declaration in the application forms as not part of the contract. It is just an antecedent communication. The only contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was the rules of the club.\r\nThe authority to levy fees must understandably be given by the rules of the club and there was no such authority under the rules. Rule 33 clearly made the board the sole authority for the interpretation of the rules and as it purported to oust the court from their jurisdiction the rule was contrary to public policy and therefore void. 3|Page CONCLUSION The conclusion for this case is the board was not entitled to levy and collect fees known as development fees from members. For the interpretation of the rules, this is contrary to public policy and therefore void. Thus, a declaration of intention or an invitation to treat, so, all fees sedate as development fees are repaid to the plaintiff and cost to be paid by the defendants.\r\nOtherwise, the offer must be communicated to the offeree which under Section 9 of the Contract Act 1950 is the exercise of power by the offeree indicating his assent to the transaction in response to the offer. The communication of an offer or a proposal is deemed to have been made by any act or thoughtlessness of the party proposing by which he intends to communicate the proposal or which has the effect of communicating it. Therefore, the declaration in the application form was not part of the contract unless the plaintiff make pay sum of the fees which salad dressing the rules of the club. It is normal for parties in the course of preliminary talks to make statements to each other but not all statement can be interpreted as an offer that can be accepted to bring about a contract. 4|Page\r\n'