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

There is no general definition of good faith under English contract law; it is generally a presumption that two parties will act honestly and fairly with one another. Unlike other systems of law, such as the French Civil Code, English contract law does not recognise the obligation of ‘good faith’. Instead there is more of a negative obligation not to tell lies rather than a positive obligation to tell the truth and act in good faith. However recent cases such as Yam Seng PTE Ltd v International Trade Corporation Limited have shown that the courts attitudes towards good faith have been developing and changing. Now it may be possible to imply a term of good faith in a contract. Therefore, where traditionally there has been a negative obligation not to tell lies, English contract law may be slowly moving towards an obligation of good faith.

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

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,

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

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).

The first issue to be addressed is whether Abigail’s advertisement for the collection was an offer or an invitation to treat; establishing this will aid our understanding of what Abigail’s position is in terms of her contractual obligation. Advertisements are mostly invitations to treat rather than an offer. The language of Abigail’s advertisement is imperative in trying to determine whether this is an invitation to treat or an offer. In the case, Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), the council used the wording ‘might’ therefore the court held this advertisement to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer. Paradoxically, in Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) the title of the document read ‘agreement to sale’ therefore this constituted an offer. On balance, Abigail’s advertisement is more akin to that of Gibson v Manchester City Council insofar as she uses phrases such as ‘or near offer’ and ‘or, telephone me, if you prefer’.

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

Finally, consideration must be sufficient but need not to be adequate. This rule stipulates that a good consideration must be of some value but there is not necessity for a bargain to be of adequate value. For example, if someone is willing to sell his Ferrari for £1, the contract will not be in vain due to lack of consideration and therefore will be sufficient. In this case, Courts will not measure the adequacy of the consideration (the fact that a Ferrari is offered to be sold at only £1) as it is up to one party to decide whether or not he agrees with the other party promises.

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.

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.

In Privy Council decision Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom (Belize thereafter), Lord Hoffmann in delivering the leading judgment, assimilated the implication of term and contractual interpretation resulting in the well-known traditional tests: “business efficacy” and “officious bystander” merely as auxiliary role in discovering the the objective intention of the contract. Even though the Belize test has long been accepted by the English and the New Zealand courts, Singapore court seems to have reservations. A great deal of debate surrounds the issue as to the roles of the Belize test to be afforded to two