Consideration - "There is no real agreement about the true basis of the requirements of consideration for a valid contract; the case law often seems to turn on arbitrary distinctions".
A D Hudson-Tyreman Grad Dip Law 2003/04 Leeds Metropolitan University Obligations 1: Contract Seminar Session 3 Consideration "There is no real agreement about the true basis of the requirements of consideration for a valid contract; the case law often seems to turn on arbitrary distinctions". The proposition described above questions the validity of the 'doctrine of consideration' and its presence within the law of contract. The doctrine of consideration seems to have developed out of the judiciary's need to differentiate areas of contract law and produce what McKendrick (2000)1 describes as 'the badge of enforceability'. The orthodox interpretation of the doctrine is based upon the idea of 'reciprocity' which suggests that a promisee could enforce a promise only when he has promised to give something in exchange or the promisor has obtained something in return. The classical and much recited definition of consideration can be found in Currie v. Misa2: '...a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss of responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other'. Beale, (2001)3 argues that the descriptions given in Currie et al...(although much cited)...were almost certainly not meant as complete definitions, merely as sufficient to
Unauthorised transaction in business law.
Unauthorised Transaction In Business Law This question is related to unauthorised transactions more specifically those relating to express authority of an officer dealing with a 3rd party. Firstly statutory protection can be examined as this provides some important points through S35A of the Companies Act 1985. The main point is that the section is in favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith and more importantly that a 3rd party is still considered as acting in good faith if they are aware that the officer did not have authority to carry out a transaction. In this case it seems the 3rd party need not concern himself with issues relating to express authority however common law may prevail. This would occur if S35A proved unclear on issues of an officer's authority to carry out a transaction. The main common law rule is known as the "Indoor Management Rule" (Or Turquand Rule) which states that a 3rd party should assume a director is authorised and if he is not the 3rd party is not liable. This seems to back up the statutory provision that a 3rd party should not concern himself to a great extent on express authority however the Indoor Management Rule does carry the proviso that if the transaction was unusual in terms of size or nature for the officer to have authority then the 3rd party is expected to enquire (Houghton & Co V Nothard, Lowe & Wills Ltd 1927). In
Contract law - Advise Delilah on her contractual position.
Contract Law: Assignment 2 ('Advise Samson & Delilah') Alex Korff [000378523] Samson wants Delilah to sell him her café. Accordingly, he pesters her with telephone calls in the small hours of the morning and threatens that, if she does not sell him the property for £150,000, he will set up a rival establishment over the road and will undercut her prices. Eventually, Delilah is worn down by Samson's persistence and she agrees to sell the café for £150,000. After the completion of the sale but before the café premises are conveyed to Samson, the parties discover that ancient and long-forgotten mine workings under the café create a serious risk that major subsidence will occur. Builders' estimates indicate that the cost of preventing such subsidence is in the region of £50,000. Samson now refuses to complete the conveyance. Advise Delilah on her contractual position. The legitimacy of the sale of Delilah's café to Samson depends upon whether Samson - by pestering Delilah "in the small hours of the morning" and threatening to "set up a rival establishment over the road and...undercut her prices" - has illegitimately forced, (either by economic duress or through undue influence), Delilah into entering the contract (i.e. not freely or knowingly). The courts, in the past, have tried to use the doctrine of consideration as a means by which to regulate
Justifying freedom of will. If contracting parties actually create their own bargains, then how can the various instances of judicial and statutory interference with contractual terms be justified?
If contractig parties actually create their own bargains, then how can the various instances of judicial and statutory interference with contractual terms be justified? Justifying Freedom of Will In law of contract, contracting parties are given free will to create their own bargains according to the terms they want. Usually, the courts are not concerned with the adequacy of consideration or the forms of the agreement. Notwithstanding the above, there are instances in which the courts interfere with unjustified contractual terms within the scope of inequality of bargaining power. In such circumstances, there will be judicial and statutory interference which the courts use to resolve these conflicts. In an effort to prevent unfair or unjust contractual terms, this essay will analyse how courts interfere with contractual terms. In the course of this analysis, statutes like Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) and Sale of Goods Act, terms of contract, promissory estoppel, vitiating factors like undue influence will be examined. Lastly, a critical analysis will be given in regards to whether such equitable remedy in justified in the context of modern law. The passing of UCTA has imposed three obligations on parties regardless of what the parties has bargained for. Firstly, the exclusion of liability for negligence. Secondly, which is the general control of exclusion clauses
Exemption clauses are an agreement in a contract which helps the party to have limited or to exclude liability. It can be used unfairly which makes it a disadvantage to other partys which is why there are laws in place to limit the use of clauses and to m
Exclusion Clauses Essays Business Law Word Count: 1950 Exclusion Clauses Essay Exemption clauses are an agreement in a contract which helps the party to have limited or to exclude liability. It can be used unfairly which makes it a disadvantage to other partys which is why there are laws in place to limit the use of clauses and to make it fair. Mr. Torres has been using Greased Lightening for five years this time he placed a different order and at the same time the contract arrived late as well as that there were new terms stated in the contract now I will find out whether the clauses are valid explain them and any possible remedies. According to Lord Fraser he said when exclusion clauses are made that exclude liability will be dealt with strictly as 'these principles are not applicable in their full rigour when considering the effect of clauses merely limiting liability' this was represented in (Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern (1983)) case. Therefore moving back to Mr. Torres case will be dealt with attention since it is excluding liability. If Greased Lightening exclusion clause was clear and unambiguous then it wouldn't been an application of the contra proferentum rule. However, in my opinion it does seems ambiguous and unclear reason being notice arrived two days later than usual and the clause was written in small and pale gray text therefore it seems uncertain.
The impact of Lord Bridges decision in the case of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Week 7 Discussion Introduction We start this discussion by outlining the facts in the case of George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd[1]. Finney Lock (defendant) provided cabbage seed to a farmer, George Mitchell (plaintiff) for circa. £200. The plaintiff had planted the seeds which subsequently did not grow as expected. The crop that did develop was not fit for human consumption, and therefore the whole crop was ploughed in by the Plaintiff. George Mitchell subsequently brought a claim against Finney Lock for damages of circa. £60,000 for a breach of contract. Within that contract was an exemption clause that stated that in the event of seeds supplied proving defective, the defendant would (at their discretion) replace the defective seeds. The issue brought before the court was: (1) whether the contractual exemption clause applied to the breach; and if so (2) was it considered 'fair and reasonable' under s.55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979[2] and s.2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977[3] (UCTA) for the defendant to rely on it in this case. Initially the case was heard in the High Court[4] who ruled against Finney Lock Seeds finding that the seeds (as described) could not be considered seeds on the basis they did not work and therefore the exclusion clause being relied upon had no contractual effect. This led to
![This paper will critically discuss the validity of the doctrine of Consideration, in terms of its result and the reasons advanced by the judges in William v Roffey[1] and how it would seem to permit any variation of a contract.](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1215953/listing/1215953_1.jpg)
This paper will critically discuss the validity of the doctrine of Consideration, in terms of its result and the reasons advanced by the judges in William v Roffey[1] and how it would seem to permit any variation of a contract.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked This paper will critically discuss the validity of the doctrine of Consideration, ‘in terms of its result and the reasons advanced by the judges in William v Roffey[1] and how it would seem to permit any variation of a contract’. Additionally, it will evaluate how the existence of a clear doctrine of economic duress has affected the doctrine of consideration, taking into account the decision reached in (1) Adam Opel GmbH (2) Renault S.A v MItras Automotive (UK) Limited [2]. As set out by Lush J in Currie v Misa [1875] “ a valuable consideration, in sense of the law, may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other.”[3] This was further elaborated by Pollock in Principle of Contract[4], a concept approved by the House of Lords particularly by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] [5] as being “an act of forbearance or the promise thereof is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.” Markedly something must come from one party into the contract and out of the contract to the other party. Subsequently, consideration is a fundamental part of contract law and is used to distinguish between enforceable and unenforceable contracts.
Law of Contract Example considering invitation to treat, offer and acceptance, intoxication of alcohol and revocation of an online purchase.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked BS2153 Law of Contract Assessment Component 1 Student Matriculation No.: 1508147 Course/Year of Study: Law and Management Stage 2 Word count*: 1698 The issues that are to be analysed within this problem are, invitation to treat, offer and acceptance, intoxication of alcohol and revocation. An offer is a proposal from one party with the intention to be legally bound in such definite terms that, if it is accepted, a legally binding contract will be formed. An offer is the key ingredient to any analysis of contract formation. Without an offer, there will never be a contract. There are often many different communications at the negotiation stage between the parties. The courts are asked to look at these objectively to find the point in time when an offer has been made to somebody. However, there are many communications that do not reach the stage of that offer. To constitute an offer we require the subject matter, the price and who the parties are, just to name a few. However, there are many things that are being said that do not quite reach that standard and which the law labels an invitation to treat. The purpose of an invitation to treat is to invite others to make an offer which can then be accepted by the person who made the invitation.[1] As a general rule, an advertisement is only an invitation to treat even if it calls itself an
All contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts. Discuss.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Law Assignment Table of Contents Introduction 1 Essential Elements of a Valid Contract 3 Acceptance 4 Lawful Consideration 5 Adequacy or sufficiency of consideration. 5 Intention to create legal relations 7 Capacity to Contract 8 Contract for Necessaries 8 Form of contracts 10 Free consent 10 Mistake. 11 Agreement Expressly Declared as Void. 12 Overall Summary 13 Conclusion 15 ________________ Table of Cases Case 1(PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT V BOOSTS CHEMIST (1953) 2 Case 2 (Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council). 3 Case 3 (WILKIE V LONDON TRANSPORT (1947) 3 Case 4 (Hyde v Wrench (1840) 4 Case 5 (POWELL V LEE (1908), 5 Case 6 (CURRIE V MISA ( 1875), 5 Case 7 (Chappell & Co. Ltd v Nestle Co. Ltd (1960) 6 Case 8 (CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO (1893) 7 Case 9 (SIMPKINS V PAYS (1955), 7 Case 10 (NASH V INMAN (1908) 9 Case 11 MERCANTILE UNION GUARANTEE CORPORATION V BALL (1937) 9 Case 12 (IN BURNARD V HAGGIS (1863) 10 ________________ Introduction Recently, we were given an assignment for our course (Introduction to Law) and it is a group assignment. Well, the requirement of the
CONTRACT LAW
CONTRACT LAW PART B USANA PARMAR All Contracts require something to be given in return for something else given from the other party. That something is called 'consideration' and each party who have entered into a contract must supply consideration for the contract to be valid and therefore enforceable. This feature of the formation of contract is the bargaining element where something is to be gained on each side. A classic definition of consideration, which in essence emphasises the theory of benefit and detriment, is given by Lush J in Currie v Misa (1875) where he said that : - ' 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'. We could also think of consideration as the 'price' paid for the contract and it sounds logical if we were to fit this principle in the commercial context of bargaining and gaining. The House of Lords were in favour of this and adopted Pollock' s definition in Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) which is: - ' An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which
