• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Case About Consideration

Extracts from this document...


Case About Consideration This is a question involving technicalities in contract law, consideration, human rights and property law. It is axiomatic to recognize the fact that Peter has a legal obligation not to follow Mary deliberately (and she would almost be sure of invoking such a defence), but her request for him not to stay in the same city could be viewed as way above that obligation and thus if Peter does go to the extent of moving away from the city, he could very well have given to her a practical benefit sufficient enough to effect consideration. This however, would only be recognized by the courts as consideration if his acts fulfill the requirement of economic value. ...read more.


Similar case quoted is Thomas v. Thomas (1842). For the relevance of property law in the arbitrary exclusion rule, read on the case of CIN Properties Ltd v. Rawlins, where a group of youths accused of misbehavior were prevented from entering upon a large part of their home centre via a court order for injunction. If an agreement is illegal, neither party can sue the other for breach of contract nor recover for any performance rendered. If the parties are found in equal fault, the court will leave them where it found them, providing a remedy to neither. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a 1775 decision, "No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act." ...read more.


Conclusion The case described certainly does not radically change the common law position in relation to illegal contract. It remains the case that the courts will not enforce a contract if it was entered into for an illegal purpose, was prohibited by statute or was subsequently performed in an illegal way. As it is an illegal contract from the very beginning that the entire agreement is void and unenforceable. It is not reasonable from Peter to sue Mary for it. Reference Materials: Goldman, Arnold J. (1996). Business law, principles and practices / Arnold J. Goldman, William D. Sigismond. 4th ed., Boston : Houghton Mifflin Co Beatty, Jeffrey F. (2001). Business Law for a New Century / Jeffrey F. Beatty, Susan S. Samuelson, 2nd ed., Autralis; Cincinnati, Ohio : West Legal Studies in Business / Thomson Learning. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    At times, the application of the doctrine of consideration is neither precise nor consistent. So, the requirement of consideration often confuses such as the case of Lampleigh v Brathwait. Strictly speaking, this would be a prima facie case where the consideration was in the past and that the promisor's promise

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    .Such a replies is not an acceptance but a counter-offer24 which the original offeror can accept or reject Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983) The buyers, an English company, by a telex, sent from London to Vienna, accepted the terms of sale offered by the sellers, an Austrian company.

  1. Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was ...

    and Lord Scarman in Universe Tankships (1982)), it would follow that a remedy for damages would lie in tort. See: Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710 (for the definition of the tort of intimidation) D&C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 Universe Tankships v ITWF [1982] 2 All ER 67.


    The loss of the business was �16 per week and was reasonably foreseeable in the ordinary course of things and the pursuers were awarded general damages on this basis. The pursuers also claimed special damages for the loss of a special government contract which would have made them�262 per week

  1. Contract Case Study

    A counter offer for example may simply be that the offeree is not happy with one or more of the terms and makes changes accordingly. Since this is not an agreement to all terms of the offer, it is not an acceptance and is known as a counter offer.

  2. The legal meaning of 'consideration'.

    > It must be something of value (however nugatory) to the offeror, or something of detriment to the offeree. > Consideration must be sufficient in law, but need not be sensible. > It must usually impose an obligation in the future; it is not usually adequate to base an offer on some consideration that was gained in the past.

  1. Legal Studies Assess Two

    However, it is important to note that the outcome may not have been just for the individual, Ivan Milat. To this day, he still says that he is innocent. After the jury returned its guilty verdict, Milat was asked he had anything that he wanted to say - all that he said was 'I'm not guilty of it.

  2. Aspects of Contract and Business Law Case Studies

    In this case Ben knew that the painting was worth at least £20,000, and therefore he reserved the painting before it went on auction. This required the auctioneer to meet the reserve price before any bid offer was accepted. Putting the painting into the auction was only an “invitation to treat”.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work