The Origin of the Doctrine

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.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

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.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

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,

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

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

In 1066 the Criminal courts weren’t found yet, but William placed all the courts under royal control and delivered a proclamation inviting the ordinary people of the country to get justice within his court system. Over time the English court system started to be together and consistent about their laws. After years following William’s system, common law crimes were getting equal throughout the country. Many crimes were getting enforced by the courts by reasons and experience in the past. Acts such as “common understanding” or by “public consent”. In Westminster Period time in England. It started to get stricter in their laws. They started to get facts from other trials that they remembered. “Stare decisis” came from the Westminster Period which is defined as let the decision stand. As time passed by the English Parliament were adding crimes, we also saw the Parliament and the courts were adding to the Common

Due to the different roots of the two systems, the definition of a contract, as well as its formation, differ between contract law in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Civil Law Jurisdictions (France). The Common Law views contracts as bargains, exchange, a simple agreement has no binding force. It is mainly concerned with forecasting the impact and the binding legal consequences of a party’s promise. The structure or purpose of the contract is not as important as knowing whether the promise of performance that the contract is based upon is enforceable.

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 today’s English law, freedom of contract is one the foundation of contract law. The existence of freedom of contract requires three main considerations: the freedom to

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.

There are going to be times in our lives when we disagree with what someone says or another person’s opinions on a particular matter. It’s unlikely that we will agree and be content with everything that happens in our lives as we do not live in a utopian world. It is also inevitable at one time or another that we will disagree with what the Church is teaching us especially when it comes to moral issues such as divorce, birth control, and abortion. This is called non-reception. When non-reception ensues in the Church, the teaching in question is ineffectively expressed or judged to be unbelievable by a large population of good, faithful Catholics (Kennedy).