Should The Abolition Of Consideration Would Be A Wrong Move?

On the one hand it is evident that terms implied at common law can be ‘implied in law’ or ‘implied in fact’. Terms implied as a matter of fact are said to give effect to unexpressed intentions of the

The "something of value" may be either something that the person actually hands over (that they would not otherwise be obligated to hand over) or some right that they give up (that they would otherwise have been entitled to exercise). For example, if you agree to buy a car for cash, you agree to deliver cash to the seller, and the seller agrees to deliver the car to you. In that situation, there is legal consideration, or sufficient value, for the agreement to be enforceable. Another example is a mutual release of claims. Suppose you accidentally hit a parked car, and you agree to pay the owner of the car £500 in cash to settle. In that case, you agree to deliver cash to the owner of the car, and the owner agrees that he or she will not file a lawsuit against you. (In such a situation, always get a written release of liability, or "release," from the owner of the car to prove that you have settled up.) The consideration from your side is the cash, and the consideration from the owner's side is that he or she gave up the right to sue you for the damages. Although the owner didn't give up anything physical, there is consideration to support the agreement because the owner gave up a legal right. Source: (http://onlinelegalforms.com/legalforms/freedraftingtips.html#consideration) Dunlop v Selfridges (1915) Hol. Defined consideration as ‘An act or forbearance of one party or, the promise thereof, is the price

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,

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

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

Consideration is a promise or performance that the promisor demands as the price of the promise. Past consideration is something that has been performed in the past and which, therefore, cannot be consideration for a promise made in the present. Promises made to another based on moral obligation lack consideration and are not enforceable. Services performed by one family member on behalf of another family member are presumed to have been rendered in obedience to a moral obligation without expectation of consideration. An example of past and moral consideration would be the hypothetical we are discussing. A binding contract does not exist between Gerwin and Baker because the element of consideration is missing. The consideration for Gerwin's

This case is very interesting. First let’s see what considerations means in business law. In order to meet the criteria as consideration, three rules need to be present: 1) Both parties must receive something of value; 2) If someone makes a promise to give something of value, this signifies a consideration; and 3) The two parties involved must come to an agreement of terms in regard to what items of value are exchanged in the deal (Beatty, 2008).

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.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

The statement in this question is “Consideration is the concept of legal value in connection with contracts. It is anything of value promised to another when making a contract. However, “past consideration is not considered a good consideration”. Please illustrate your answer with reference to 3 articles and case laws.”

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.