Business Case: The Eurymedon

Billy communicates his acceptance directly in response to Choy’s offer. To ensure a contract, acceptance must be unqualified, clear and certain and communicated to the offeror. In this case, these requirements are satisfied and Billy clearly expresses his acceptance, temporarily giving up his study.

A’s promise to B can only be enforced by B if B has given consideration for that promise;

A contract is a promise between two or more parties that the law recognizes as binding by providing a remedy in the event of breach. In order for a promise to be enforceable it must be supported by consideration. Consideration can be defined as a bargained for exchange between the promisor and promisee; a promise can not be considered a contract without consideration. Common law states also require mutual assent to exist for a contract to be enforceable, this means that there must be an offer and an acceptance of said offer. For example, if a promise is made between two consenting people and one of those

Kellerher Funeral Home, Inc. is claiming that a breach of contract has occurred in as much as the work completed by Gonzaga Construction was of sufficiently poor quality as to require rework that cost $4,700. Further, though Kellerher controlled the delays in construction due to his need to continue business operations, he is charging that the lost profit is due to construction delays brought about by Gonazaga's work on the site. The contract language did not stipulate how the interests of the going concern would be balanced against construction project schedule. Indeed, no date of completion was specified in the contract, and a two-week interim between the filing and the commencement of construction is a reasonable period of time for material procurement and arranging for labor. Moreover, the poor workmanship allegation was not communicated during the construction project, leaving Gonzaga with no opportunity to correct any problems with workmanship. For both parties to the contract, it is generally understood that a business contract agreement for services includes some intangibles, such as cooperation, quality of work, reliable communication, experience, and so forth. An essential element in a contract is consideration, which refers to a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promise. In other words, consideration is an exchange that is bargained for in the present in return for

This is a clear expression of a party accepting agreement to the terms of the offer.

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

Another element of a valid contract is consideration moving to the contract. In order for a valid contract to exist, both parties must agree to some type of valuable obligation

Under Common Law, for a contract to exist, three elements must be present: an offer, an acceptance and a consideration. The notions of offer and acceptance under Common Law are not fundamentally different from those in French contract law, although their effects may differ. The offer indicates the willingness of a party to enter into a bargain, and the acceptance reflects the agreement of the other party to the offer.

Consideration still serves as a useful tool in filtering out non-contractual promises. Non-contractual promises are non-enforceable agreements, for example social agreements; nevertheless if one party claims otherwise, the courts will have to prove the exceptions like business intent. There is a debate if illusionary estoppel is legal, or can good faith parties be dragged into it. Moreover Lord Goff states in White v Jones that, “our law of contract is widely seen as deficient in the sense that it is perceived to be hampered by the presence of an unnecessary doctrine of consideration. But, while the doctrine may not be very popular nowadays (it) still exists part of our law”. Critics have argued that adaptability of consideration is one of its strengths and if abolished the other doctrines won’t be able to adapt to the modern contract formation. And this was backed up by professor Treitel when he insisted that the courts have to power to ‘invent’ consideration

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

Consideration is a contract where the terms are mutually traded among the two parties. The contract could be used to require a party to perform certain acts, or be used to refrain a party from committing certain acts. For example, I am driving a vehicle and a car drives up behind me and slams into my vehicle. The driver of the car understands that he is fully at fault, but does not have enough money to pay for the damages. Instead of filing a lawsuit against him, I decide to sign a contract that gives the driver of the vehicle who damaged my car 60 days to pay for the damage, and on top of that a fee for not being able to pay right away. In the contract it states that I will not file a lawsuit until the 60 days are over, but after the 60

In the article “Consideration - in Acceptance of Contract”， this support Robert’s (2015) evidence that if an act is performed then a subsequent promise to pay by reference to that act is not enforceable as the consideration was past. Other that, he also noted that if there was an implication; the past promise to pay is enforceable.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of consent to the terms of an offer. An offer may only be accepted by the person to whom it is made unless an agent is authorized to accept on behalf of that person. In addition, an acceptance must be made in the manner requested or authorized by the offering party. If the party to whom the offer is made

Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball is instrumental in developing the law of unilateral offers. The case sets out the three