...Consideration is one of the elements that are required to form a contract. In consideration, both parties must promise to give or do something for the other. (Note: if a contract is made by deed, then consideration is not needed.) In other word, consideration can be described as the mutual rights and promises made by the parties to a contract. This can be either a promise to do something that a person not legally obligated to do, or a promise not to do something that a person have the right to do (often, this means a promise not to file a lawsuit). There are a lot of rules that must be taken in order to govern consideration. One of them is consideration can be present or future, but not past. Present consideration is executed when the consideration is performed at the time the contract is made. As an example, Lin offers RM100.00 reward for the return of her lost handbag, if Alex finds the bag and returns it, Lin's consideration is executed. Meanwhile, future consideration will happen when there is an exchange of promises to perform acts in the future. For example, Mei promises to deliver goods to John at a future date and John promises to pay on delivery. If Mei does not deliver them, this is a breach of contract and John can sue. However, past consideration is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Past consideration arises when a promisee’s action has happened before the promisor made his promise. This can be proved in the Roscorla v. Thomas case. In this case...
Words: 1251 - Pages: 6
...if she graduates from Eagle College. Dina enrolls in Eagle, attends full-time for four years, and graduates. When Dina asks Chris for $40,000, Chris says, “I don’t remember promising you $40,000. But if there was a promise, it’s not enforceable, because we didn’t bargain for it. And even if there was a promise that would otherwise be enforceable, I revoke it now.” Can Dina enforce Chris’s “promise”? Why or why not? Starting at the beginning we must determine if this is a promise, gift or contract. Consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. For there to be a contract there must be something of value given in exchange for the promise. In this case, Chris promised $40,000 in exchange for Dina graduating from a specific college, Eagle College. There was apparently a discussion about it that prompted Dina to enroll in and complete the course of study at that school. For the contract to be legally binding, there must be legal sufficiency and adequacy of consideration (fairness). Both the degree and the cash have value in the eyes of the law. We must however consider the fairness of the agreement, what value does Chris get from Dina’s completing school? Uncertain performance is related to promises exchanged when the performance of both parties is uncertain. Unfortunately for Dina, a promise is illusory. Illusory means based on illusion/not real. We should consider if a promissory estoppel could be put into place to enforce the promise. There are four requirements...
Words: 537 - Pages: 3
...Essentially, consideration is one of the sixth elements of contract which will be discussed in this essay. According to Lord Pollock, in Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd, consideration is ‘an act or forbearance of one party 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,’ Some elements of consideration which also will be discussed are it must be sufficient in the eyes of law, it need not be adequate, it must not so vague, it can be present or future, but cannot be past. In this essay, I am going to discuss about consideration needs only be sufficient, not adequate and to consider whether there is a sufficient consideration in situations where there is pre-existing legal or contractual duty, and in situations as in Williams and Roffrey Bros or practical benefit. Consideration need only be sufficient, not adequate. It means the court has no interest in determining whether the consideration for a promise is equal to the value of that promise. As long as there is some consideration provided for the promise, the court will enforce that promise. Furthermore, it can be divided into 4 parts. The first part is consideration must have value in the eyes of the law. It means the price does not necessarily to be right as long as there is a value, and the court will not process any further. The case that illustrates this concept is Chappel & Co. v Nestle Co. Ltd. Nestle offered the opportunity to purchase recorded...
Words: 1668 - Pages: 7
...promisee provide consideration, then the promise could not be enforce by the law. This problem usually may arise when third party involve. For example in the case of Price v Easton (1833), In this case X are doing work for Easton and Easton make a contract with X. In return for X services Easton would pay a price of $19 to Price. The work was done by X but Easton didn’t make any payment to Price and Price sue Easton. Court held that Price claim failed as he didn’t make any consideration. However under the Malaysia law third party of promise are allowed to provide consideration. Section 2(d) of contract Act 1950 define consideration as “when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise”. For example in the case of Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh [1966], The defendant own RM8,869.94. In order to settle the debt the defendant son offer a cheque to plaintiff RM4,000 in full settlement for his father debt. The plaintiffs cash the cheque and demand for the balance of the debt. The federal court ruled that as the plaintiff cash the cheque. It is consider that the plaintiff has acceptance the defendant son offer in full satisfaction preclude the plaintiff to claim the balance of the debt. This means that, for an agreement to be binding the both party, consideration must be take...
Words: 1043 - Pages: 5
...itself sufficient consideration to legally enforce a promise. Valuable consideration is the essential element to the formation of a valid contract. In Currie v Misa, Lord J stated that a valuable consideration, in the sense of law, may consist either in 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. In other words, it is ‘the element of exchange in a contract’ or ‘the price paid for a promise’. Performance of an existing duty is one of the general rule of valid consideration. Where a promisee already owes the promisor a legal duty, then in theory performing the duty should not in itself be consideration. Existing duties fall into various categories which are public duty, contractual duties to the promisor and contractual duties to a third party. Where a person is merely carrying out duties they were obliged to perform such as police officer protecting citizens or a jury listening to the evidence, it cannot amount to consideration for a promised award. In Collins v Godefroy, the defendant promised to pay a fee to the plaintiff who had been summoned to give evidence in a court action. It was held that he was obliged to give the evidence. Hence, doing so could not be consideration. However, where a person is under a public duty, but does something goes beyond what they are bound to do under that duty, that extra act can amount to consideration. As in the case...
Words: 820 - Pages: 4
...* Issues which were determine by the Court, * Identifying such issues if any, which the Court did not determine, * Properly stating the Decision of the Court, * The reasons as identified by the Court for its Decision, * Your analysis of whether the issues were framed properly or not, * Your analysis as to the correctness of the reasoning of the Court and * Your Opinion on the impact of the decision on the Law in general. The Law as it stood before the Case Pre-existing Duty Rule: This case was decided on the basis of Principle of CONSIDERATION under the existing Law of Contracts and the law was same before the ruling of this case. When a seaman is bound by his contract of service to serve for a particular voyage, a promise to increase his wages, unless there is increased duty or hazard, does not bind the promisor.2 It is otherwise, however, if the promise is made in consideration of increased peril and labor under circumstances which would have justified the seaman in throwing up the contract. The Judgment was inspired by a preceding case Harris v. Watson. However the applicability of Stilk v Myrick was still debatable until it was overturned by Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. Facts Of The Case This is related...
Words: 2610 - Pages: 11
...Name Date Class Lesson 8-1 Types of Consideration LESSON 8-1 OUTLINE I. Consideration A. Act, Forbearance, or Promise B. Trading C. Legal Value D. Adequacy of Consideration E. Nominal Consideration Lesson 8-1 Review Vocabulary Review Define the following vocabulary terms. 1. consideration That which is given or received in a contract. 2. gift The transfer of ownership without receiving anything in return. 3. donor The person giving a gift. 4. donee The person receiving a gift. 5. forbearance A promise to not do something. 6. promisor The person who promises an action or forbearance. 7. promisee The person to whom a promise is made. Concept Review 8. Define consideration. Consideration is what a person demands and generally must receive in order to make his or her promise legally binding. Lesson 8-1 Review (continued) 9. How can legal value be found in the exchange of benefit for a detriment? With legal value, the detriment is the giving up of a legal right. A detriment arises when a person promise forbearance. 10. Under what conditions is there no consideration? There is no consideration if one of the parties does not give an act, forbearance, or promise to the other, if one of the parties does not trade her or his contribution to the transaction, or if what is traded has no legal value. 11. What is adequacy of consideration? The values that different people place on similar...
Words: 1113 - Pages: 5
... In April 2015, JLL announce an official increase in prices to $120 per plank. At this point LI requested a meeting with JLL to discuss this price increase and its effect on LI activities at its construction sites in Paramin and Biche respectively. After that meeting, JLL submitted a revised contract with the new pricing arrangement. LI accepted deliveries of the lumber planks from JLL, which reflected the new pricing arrangement of $120 but paid the initial contract sum of $100 per plank and as such, LI was in arrears to JLL. LI is adamant that they have a binding arrangement with JLL for two years ending 25th May 2016 to purchase lumber planks at $100 and JLL subsequent contractual arrangement in April 2015 failed for want of consideration. The Lawyers for LI has indicated that JLL is already obligated to sell at $100 per plank before the new contractual arrangement in April 2015 to sell at $120. Lightwood Industries (LI) is owned by Mr Lightwood, who is a friend of the family. He is aware that you are currently pursuing Business Law at UWI Open Campus and sought you advice on the issue. Please advise Mr...
Words: 1154 - Pages: 5
...the traditional rules of consideration have been relaxed in order to maintain effective business relationships? | Programmes undertaking the assignment | LLB (Hons) Law | Pupil | Juan López MartínezID: 004426895 | Hand-in date | Friday November 06th 2015 | INTRODUCTION First of all, the definition of Consideration is going to be stated. Consideration is an essential fact in the elaboration of a contract. It may consist of a promise to perform a desired action or a vow to abstain from doing any act that one has the legal right to do. A bilateral contract is an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises, every promise is considered to be sufficient consideration for the other. On the other hand, a unilateral contract is an agreement by which one party makes a promise in base of obtaining something in return from the other part. This ‘something in return’ is the consideration of the promise, and the promise is the consideration of the performance. Namely, this is the promise of a promise or promise made in return for a particular action. There’s going to be consideration if the price is being offered to the other party. An Orthodox way to define consideration is based on the idea of reciprocity, whereby, a promise should not be able to enforce a promise unless you have given or promised to give something in exchange for the promise or unless the promisor given or promised to give something in return. But this idea of consideration is subjected to strong objection...
Words: 2326 - Pages: 10
...reward of RM3,000. The issue is whether John is entitled to the reward of RM3,000 that have been offered by Jenny. Under section 26 of the Contract Act 1950 (“CA”) provides that as general rule, an agreement without consideration is void. Section 2 (d) of CA provides the definition of consideration as ‘When, at the desire of promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstains from doing something, or does or abstain from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.’ Section 26 (b) provide that an agreement without consideration is void unless it is a promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for promisor. Illustration 9 (c) to Section 26, CA 1950 shown: A finds B’s purse and gives it to him. B promises to give A RM50. This is contract. In the case of Lampleigh v Brahwait, the court held that an act originally done at the request of the promisor, a promise made subsequent to the doing of that act, was deemed binding since the act constituted consideration. Applying the principle above, it is clear that there is consideration for the promise made by Jenny. Past consideration may be a good consideration. As John returned Spots to Jenny within 10 days of the advertisement, according to the advertisement, it is valid for John to entitle to the reward of RM3,000. In conclusion, john is entitled with the reward of RM3,000 because...
Words: 336 - Pages: 2
...Legal Enviroment of Business MBA-535 Saint Leo University Dementas v. Estate of Tallas Case Brief Tibetha Pascal 3 April 2016 1. Dementas v. Estate of Tallas., 764 P. 2d 628-Utah Court of Appeals (1988) 2. Procedural History This case was brought to trial court or Court of Appeals, where the trial court deemed lack of consideration for Dementas’ claim. The court basically said that the contract between the two parties, Jack Tallas (defendant) and Peter Dementas (plaintiff) did not prove to show/have proper consideration. The said contract between the two parties, was that Tallas promised Dementas $50,000 for past performance. However, past performances are normally not considered valid consideration in most courts. Therefore, the court rules this contract was unenforceable. As a result of the ruling, Dementas decided to appeal the court’s finding. 3. Facts In Salt Lake City, Utah, 1914, an immigrant named Jack Tallas migrated from Greece to start a life as a businessman. Tallas bought properties, many of which he rented out. During his time in Salt Lake City, Tallas befriended Peter Dementas, who over the past 14 years leading up to Tallas’ death provided services which consisted of helping Tallas to manage properties, providing transportation when needed to include going back and forth to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and the post office. In December of 1982, the 18th day, Tallas verbally told Dementas in Greek, that upon his death, Dementas...
Words: 1239 - Pages: 5
...In contract law consideration is concerned with the bargain of the contract. A contract is based on an exchange of promises. Each party to a contract must be both a promisor and apromisee. They must each receive a benefit and each suffer a detriment. This benefit or detriment is referred to as consideration. Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law - (Thomas v Thomas) (1842) 2 QB 851. Rules of consideration There are various rules governing the law of consideration: 1. The consideration must not be past - Past consideration may be valid where it was proceeded by a request: Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] 2. The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. There is no requirement that the consideration must be market value, providing something of value is given eg £1 given in exchange for a house would be valid. The courts are not concerned with whether the parties have made a good or bad bargain: Chappell v Nestle [1960] 3. The consideration must move from the promisee. If a person other than the promisee is to provide the consideration, the promisee cannot enforce the agreement: Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 4. An existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration. Where a party has a public duty to act, this can not be used as consideration for a new promise: Collins v Godefrey (1831) 5. An existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration. If a party has an existing...
Words: 886 - Pages: 4
...Chapter 10: Consideration 1. Consideration may be defined as: a. a socially approved way to provide for the poor. b. something of value given in exchange for a promise. c. an arrangement for transferring and allocating risk. d. a way to promote healthy living. Answers: a. Incorrect. This is not a definition of consideration. b. Correct. Consideration is something valuable that a person gives in exchange for a promise of some sort. c. Incorrect. This is a definition of insurance. d. Incorrect. This is not a definition of consideration. 2. Often, consideration is broken down into two parts, something of legal value and: a. some kind of income redistribution. b. some kind of coercive behavior. c. a clear moral hazard. d. a bargained-for exchange. Answers: a. Incorrect. This is not the second part of consideration (although a promise might involve a voluntary redistribution of income). b. Incorrect. Consideration is a necessary component of a contract, and contracts are only valid if they are entered into voluntarily. c. Incorrect. Moral hazards are not the second part of consideration. d. Correct. The second part of consideration is a bargained-for exchange. 3. Liz contracts with Brian. Liz agrees to cook twenty dinners for Brian, in exchange for which Brian will repair all of the plumbing in Liz’s house. In this consideration legally sufficient...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...“sufficiency of consideration” and “adequacy of consideration”. Give an example of each. Consideration contains two parts: something of legally sufficient value must be given in exchange for a promise (often a promise for a promise), and there must be a bargained-for exchange. Legal value can be a promise, performance, modification or destruction of a legal right. Legal sufficiency of consideration involves the requirement that consideration be something of legally sufficient value in the eyes of the law. For something to be legally sufficient, consideration for a promise must be either legally detrimental to the party receiving the promise (promisee) or legally beneficial to the one making the promise (Promisor). For example, it must be legally valid. Something of legal value must be given in exchange for a promise. It may be a return promise if it is performance, that performance may be an act other than a promise, or a forbearance refraining from action. Carbone Inc., begins construction on an office building and after 4 months demands an extra $60,000 on its contract. If the extra $60,000 is not paid, he contractor will stop working. The owner of the land, finding no one else to complete the construction, agrees to pay the extra $60,000. The agreement is unenforceable because it is not supported by legally sufficient consideration. Carbone Inc., had a preexisting contractual duty to complete the building construction. Adequacy of consideration refers to the...
Words: 605 - Pages: 3
...Facts D & C Builders Ltd was a two man building firm run by Mr Donaldson and Mr Casey. They had done work for Mr Rees at 218 Brick Lane, London E1, coming to £732. Mr Rees had only paid £250. £482 was owing. D&C were facing bankruptcy if they were not paid. Mrs Rees phoned up to complain that the work was bad, and refused to pay more than £300. D&C reluctantly accepted and took a receipt marked ‘in completion of account’. After that, they consulted their solicitors and sued for the balance. [edit] Judgment Lord Denning MR held that the doctrine of part payment of a debt not discharging the whole ‘has come under heavy fire’ but noted that estoppel, deriving from the principle laid down in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. could give relief in equity. Although in his opinion part payment of debt could satisfy a whole debt, he found that Mrs Rees had effectively held the builders to ransom. Therefore any variation of the original agreement was voidable at the instance of the debtors for duress. “ In point of law payment of a lesser sum, whether by cash or by cheque, is no discharge of a greater sum. This doctrine of the common law came under heavy fire. It was ridiculed by Sir George Jessel in Couldery v Bartram.[1] It was said to be mistaken by Lord Blackburn in Foakes v Beer.[2] It was condemned by the Law Revision Committee (1945 Cmd 5449), paras. 20 and 21 . But a remedy has been found. The harshness of the common law has been relieved. Equity has stretched out a merciful...
Words: 1885 - Pages: 8
