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

Consideration

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Consideration Francis agrees to build a swimming pool for Gerald for �5,000, payable on completion. After beginning to dig the pool, Francis hits a layer of rock, which makes the work a great deal harder. Francis refuses to proceed unless he is promised another �2,000. Gerald reluctantly agrees to pay Francis, and as a gesture of goodwill he makes one or two small improvements to the pool. On completion, Gerald tells Francis that all he can afford is �5,000. Since Francis is also short of cash, he agrees to accept �5,000 in full settlement. Francis has now discovered that Gerald is rich enough to install a wave machine in his pool. Advise Francis, who now wants to recover the �2,000 that he was promised. All contracts require that something is given in return for something else from the other party, this is known as consideration. There are many definitions of consideration, but Currie v Misa (1875) is a very known one, which states 'A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other'. A more up-to-date version of this definition however, is from the case, Dunlop v Selfridge (1915), 'An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought'. ...read more.

Middle

request, this is seen as an exception, along with Promissory Estoppel, shown in the cases of Bracken v Billinghurst and Inland Revenue v Fry. Promissory Estoppel, however, is relevant to the case of Gerald and Francis. The concept of Promissory Estoppel is based on the principle that it would be unfair to let the promisor go back on his promise, because this would cause hardship to the promisee. The doctrine traces back to the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877), although Lord Denning has later developed the doctrine further in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947). In High Trees, Promissory Estoppel was used to suspend liability under the lease, the landlord's rights revived after the war period. Lord Denning's view of D&C Builders v Rees was that rights could be extinguished altogether if it is fair to do so. This contrasts with the cases Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric, Ajayi v Briscoe and Alan v El Nasr. It is difficult to distinguish whether or not the doctrine operates to suspend or altogether extinguish them completely. In Francis's case, it would seem that he would be unable to sue, as he accepted he �5,000, but he could be entitled to the �2,000 extra offered, because he did however, exceed his contractual duty. This was done by him dealing with the extra layer of rock. This could be backed up by the case Hartley v Ponsonby, which is a main contractual duty case. ...read more.

Conclusion

Although Francis accepted the �5,000, he did this under pressure, he was already short of money and needed all he could, however, this is seen as he was being held at ransom. A case with similar case facts is D&C Builders v Rees. A similar circumstance occurred between a builder and a family, where the family, Rees, refused to pay full amount due to the work being unsatisfactory, so they only paid half of the total amount. The builders sued, the defendant claimed Promissory Estoppel, stating that the plaintiff had agreed to part payment of a debt when they accepted the money, and the court then held that the builders were held to ransom to accept the lesser amount, and forced to accept what they could get. "He who seeks equity, must do equity", stated by Lord Denning, is the reason why the defendant was not successful in their claim of Promissory Estoppel, it would have been inequitable and not do justice. In conclusion, Francis is able to sue for the �2,000. Although he accepted �5,000, this was not as part payment of debt seen in Pinnel's case, he accepted it due to no other option, seen in D&C Builders v Rees. Due to the case not being equitable, he is also able to claim Promissory Estoppel, due to the purchase Gerald made of a wave machine. Finally, shown in Hartley v Ponsonby, Francis did exceed his contractual duty due to the rock, and therefore is entitled to the new promise of the additional �2,000. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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)

    Scarman in laying down the three conditions which are, the act constituting consideration must be done at the promisor's request, the parties must have understood that the work was to be paid at a later date and lastly, the promise would be legally enforceable should it has been made prior

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    tender submitted for the construction of building - acceptance creates binding contract unless expressly stipulated that there will be no contract until certain formal document have been executed 2) Tender made for indefinite amount, acceptance of it just formed a 'standing offer' which will turn to separate contract each time an order is placed.

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    Only the existence of the clause needs to be notified - not necessarily the details of it content. Whether reasonable notice had been given depends upon the facts of each case. Thompson v LMS Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41.

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

    The following case, considered by the House of Lords, is a useful reminder of the fact that the pressure applied must be improper in the legal sense: Dimskal Shipping Co v ITWF (The Evia Luck) [1991] 4 All ER 871.

  1. The theory of tenure requires that all land that is held for any estate ...

    The other doctrine is of estate. That land held in tenure is also held for an estate. That is, for some period of time. Estate therefore is concerned with the length of time for which land is held. It is an interest in land of defined duration.3 CATEGORIES OF ESTATES Estates were divided into two categories: (a)

  2. DIFFEERENT AREAS OF CONTRACT LAW

    because the offeree has in fact rejected the original offer and replaced it with a new offer of their own in the offeror may or may not choose to accept and in this case did not accept. Then again just because someone requests more information about an offer does not necessarily mean it is a counter offer.

  1. I have been asked to advise a client on considering contracting with a building ...

    8October Letter of Revocation of offer posted in Cardiff. 11 October Letter of offer received in New York and telegram of acceptance sent. 15 October Letter confirming acceptance posted in New York. 20 October Letter of revocation received in New York.

  2. Law of Contract - Promissory Estoppel

    Consideration, here means according to the case of Currie v Misa to encompass the elements of benefit to the promisor or detriment to the promisee, of which the consideration must move from the promise and forbearance. In deciding this issue, the general rule is to be taken into account as

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