Consideration (Malaysia Law)

There is consideration present here since according to the ‘Doctrine of Consideration, ' promises will legally enforceable if you ‘ask for something in return for ' something else. Here, Ken asks for £12,000 in return for his work to build Jack 's conservatory. Therefore, when Jack ‘accordingly contacts Ken to say that he will be employing him to do the building work, ' Jack has accepted Ken 's offer, and both parties have entered into a legally binding contract. Jack 's statement qualifies as an acceptance since there is correspondence between the two parties, whereby both the offer and acceptance are on the same terms; there is nexus, where the acceptance is in response to the offer; and finally, there is communication on both parts. Moreover, when Jack states that he will accept the ‘most competitive ' tender, he could argue that the recommendation from ‘Barnie, ' his ‘neighbour ' who expresses that ‘Ken is an excellent builder ' constitutes Jack 's meaning of the ‘most competitive. ' However, this is not relevant unless Bob wishes to argue in court that Jack 's proposal was indeed an invitation to tender, which constitutes an offer, as according to Harvela.

Held: He was not entitled to commission for the period when he sold other supplier's goods.

A legally binding promise must also always be supported by consideration, a prerequisite defined as “the exchange of promises from each party- from the promisor to the promisee”. There is uncertainty in whether the consideration offered in this situation is sufficient or not. Moral obligations regarding “natural love and affection” are not deemed to be sufficient consideration unless there is a legal obligation involved. Whether Billy’s initial decision to work on the farm creates a sufficient enough legal obligation for

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

A contract is formed when an offer by one party is accepted by the other party. Consideration is the price paid for the promise of the other party. The price must be something of value, although it need not be money. Consideration may be some right, interest or benefit going to one party or some, losses or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party.

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

Furthermore, the agreement, is where the actual contract is offered and accepted by two parties (Cheeseman, 2010). The consideration is the legal form of payment or exchange within the contract such as money, property, or provision of services (Cheeseman,

This is a legal term that is given to the bargained for exchange between the parties in which a contract is made. This can be something of some value that is passed from one party to the other. In addition each party of the contract will gain some benefit from the agreement as well as incur some obligation in exchange for the benefit received.

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

In the case of Kim v. Son, I believe common law is the applicable source of law. The idea of consideration in regard to contract law is a result of common law principles. The UCC would not apply because there were no goods involved, only money. Furthermore, since the judge ruled that there was no valid contract to begin with, due to the absence of consideration, there were no goods,

However, consideration is a concept that has no real equivalent in French contract law. According to the Common Law systems, a promise is only biding when there is something in return.

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.

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.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.