What is Consideration?

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.

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

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

“Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement.” (USLegal.com, 2012)

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

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

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.

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.

Consideration can be classified as one party expect to get benefit from other according to the act performed by parties with a contractual deal. The benefit can be something valuable such as product or service and not only the money. It can be divided into 3 type of consideration which is executed, executor and past consideration. Executed consideration defined as when the promise carried out and thus the act has been carried

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.