1. Jenny lost her puppy named spots. She advertised in the New Sabah Times that whoever finds spots and returns it to her within 10 days of the advertisement, she will reward the person RM3,000.
John read the advertisement and found spots. He returned spots to Jenny after 4 days of the advertisement. Advise John whether he is entitled to the reward of RM3,000.

The issue is whether John is entitled to the reward of RM3,000 that have been offered by Jenny.

Under section 26 of the Contract Act 1950 (“CA”) provides that as general rule, an agreement without consideration is void. Section 2 (d) of CA provides the definition of consideration as ‘When, at the desire of promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstains from doing something, or does or abstain from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.’ Section 26 (b) provide that an agreement without consideration is void unless it is a promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for promisor. Illustration 9 (c) to Section 26, CA 1950 shown: A finds B’s purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A RM50. This is contract. In the case of Lampleigh v Brahwait, the court held that an act originally done at the request of the promisor, a promise made subsequent to the doing of that act, was deemed binding since the act constituted consideration.

Applying the principle above, it is clear that there is consideration for the promise made by Jenny. Past consideration may be a good consideration. As John returned Spots to Jenny within 10 days of the advertisement, according to the advertisement, it is valid for John to entitle to the reward of RM3,000.

In conclusion, john is entitled with the reward of RM3,000 because he returned spot to Jenny within the period