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

The legal meaning of 'consideration'.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"The courts have insisted that no contract (other than a contract under seal) can be enforceable in the absence of consideration." Shears & Stephenson [1996] Under English law, for a simple contract to be valid, there must be 'consideration' from the party accepting the offer. The traditional definition comes from the case of Currie v Misa [1875] where Luch LJ states: 'A valuable consideration in the sense of the law 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.' The legal meaning of 'consideration' is not very different from the everyday use of term. For example, if it was said, "For a small consideration I will..." it is probably an offering to do something for money. However, the consideration need not be monetary. It need not even be a benefit, i.e. ...read more.

Middle

Consideration might be provided if the creditor agrees to accept: > Part-payment on an earlier date than the due date. > Chattel instead of money. > Part-payment in a different place to that originally specified. Also a promise to accept a smaller sum in full satisfaction will be binding on a creditor where the part-payment is made by a third party on condition that the debtor is released from the obligation to pay the full amount5. A further exception to the rule is to be found in the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. This is the name given to the equitable doctrine which has as its principal source the obiter dicta of Denning LJ in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]. The principle is that if someone makes a promise, which another person acts on, the promisor is stopped, or estopped, from going back on the promise, even though the other person did not provide consideration. ...read more.

Conclusion

* It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise and revert to his strict legal rights6. Furthermore, it must be said on the promissory estoppel doctrine is that it cannot be used to found a cause of action; that is, it may not be used in legal proceedings brought to force someone to uphold a promise. It can only be used to prevent someone going back on their promise and insisting on enforcement of their strict right7. It is to be used as a shield, not a sword. Denning LJ states on this matter: '...that principle does not create new causes of action where none existed before...' Thus there is, in the name of equity, a doctrine which makes certain promises enforceable despite the absence of consideration. 1 Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] 2 Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 3 Chappell & Co v Nestle [1960] 4 Stilk v Myrick [1809] 5 Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 6 D & C Builders v Rees [1965] 7 Coombe v Coombe [1951] Contract Law Assignment 3 Access to Law Mohammed Abdullah ...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)

    And yet, it was held that the claimants had provided consideration in the sense that they provided a practical benefit to the defendants and so were entitled to the promise. Apparently, this situation differs from the cases of Hartley v Posonby [1857] and Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC [1925]

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    that there was a course of dealing between the parties which amounted to a valid, working contract. Steyn LJ pointed out that: (a) The courts take an objective approach to deciding if a contract has been made. (b) In the vast majority of cases a matching offer and acceptance will

  1. e-commerce legal issues

    The traditional offline rules apply to online contracts, that is to say, e-commerce is applied by the same principle as traditional paper-based transaction3, and only the way in which they apply may be different. Under common law, an offer is a statement by one party of a willingness to enter

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

    It included an exclusion clause in the small print. What if the person signs the contract because of fraud or misrepresentation? Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dying Co [1951] 1 KB 805. The claimant took a wedding dress trimmed with beads and sequins to be cleaned.

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

    He alleged that the defendant had promised to pay six guineas (�6.30) for appearing." (Taken from Common Law 1 BPP) The outcome of the case was that there was not any consideration for this promise as the claimant was obliged to appear in court by law.

  2. Contract Practice for Alpha construction LTD.

    2.0 2.1 Matters arising The point where contact details were exchanged should be included in the minutes 3.0 3.1 Parties Involved Proposed that the group determines which method of procurement the client will use before identifying which parties are involved in the project as each system will involve slight variations

  1. DIFFEERENT AREAS OF CONTRACT LAW

    The things that need to be considered are: * Challenges - if restraint is unreasonable and nothing more than a blatant attempt to stifle competition by preventing an employee from seeking alternative employment. * The length is unreasonable - last for longer time than absolutely necessary * The geographical area

  2. Law of Contract - Promissory Estoppel

    stated in Pinnel's case and Foakes v Beer whereby the part payment of $1 is not considered to be full satisfaction of the $10 rental. This would in effect mean that Kajai is still liable to pay the balance of $9 because he has not provided consideration for the promise made by Long.

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