• 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)

    The courts would be reluctant to interfere should both parties had readily agreed to what the subsequent consideration should be, regardless of how trifle its economic value may be. In the past, as shown in the case of White v Bluett [1853], the consideration provided by the claimant should be of some economic value.

  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. Contract Practice for Alpha construction LTD.

    the contractor can hold the architect responsible for a certain defect and vice versa. 2. A functional building at a reasonable cost can be achieved. 3. In the best interest of the client the client can appoint an agent who will be responsible for overseeing the entire process and ensure

  2. DIFFEERENT AREAS OF CONTRACT LAW

    McGhee and Skilton had left their previous employers to go work for rival dairies. So both employees were in a strong position to approach the ex-employers customers and persuade them to use the services of their new employers, this is known as poaching.

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

    (BPP Common Law 1994) An example of this is the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company V Montefiore 1866. Montefiore applied to Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company in June for shares and paid a deposit to the companies' bank. At the end of November the company sent him a letter of

  2. Law of Contract - Promissory Estoppel

    Furthermore, under Foakes v Beer, it can be stated that if Kajai is under an existing obligation to pay a larger amount, he cannot at law discharge that liability by paying a smaller amount. Thus, applying the general rule, Kajai cannot have been said to have provided consideration for the

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