|
Consideration
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions. The court in ''Currie v Misa'' declared consideration to be a “Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit, or Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, Responsibility”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee; and typically the thing of value is goods, money, or an act. Forbearance to act, such as an adult promising to refrain from smoking, is enforceable if one is thereby surrendering a legal right. Consideration may be thought of as the concept of value offered and accepted by people or organisations entering into contracts. Anything of value promised by one party to the other when making a contract can be treated as "consideration": for example, if A contracts to buy a car from B for $5,000, A's c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured. Contract law, like other areas of private law, varies between jurisdictions. The various systems of contract law can broadly be split between common law jurisdictions, civil law jurisdictions, and mixed law jurisdictions which combine elements of both common and civil law. Common law jurisdictions typically require contracts to include consideration in order to be valid, whereas civil and most mixed law jurisdictions solely require a meeting of the mind ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement which is enforceable by law. Development The Act as enacted originally had 266 Sections, * General Principles of Law of Contract – Sections 01 to 75 * Contract relating to Sale of Goods – Sections 76 to 123 * Special Contracts- Indemnity, Guarantee, Bailment & Pledge and Agency – Sections 124 to 238 * Contracts relating to Partnership – Sections 239 to 266 At present the Indian Contract Act may be divided into two parts: * Part 1: Deals with the General Principles of Law of Contract – Sections 1 to 75 * Part 2: Deals with Special kinds of Contract ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peppercorn (legal)
In legal parlance, a peppercorn is a metaphor for a very small cash payment or other nominal consideration, used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal contract. It is featured in ''Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd'' (960AC 87), which stated that "a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn". Function in contract law In English law, and other countries with similar common law systems, a legal contract requires that each side must provide consideration. In other words, each party will give something of value to the other party for the contract to be considered binding. The situation is different under contracts within civil law jurisdictions because such nominal consideration can be categorised as a disguised gift. However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party. So, if a contract calls for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pao On V Lau Yiu Long
''Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long'' 979UKPC 17is a contract law appeal case from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong">Court of Appeal of Hong Kong decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, concerning Consideration (law), consideration and duress in English law, duress. It is relevant for English contract law. Facts Fu Chip Investment Co. Ltd., a newly formed public company, majority owned by Lau Yiu Long and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a building called "Wing On", owned by Tsuen Wan Shing On Estate Co. Ltd. ("Shing On"), whose majority shareholder was Pao On and family (the claimants). Instead of simply selling the building for cash, Lau and Pao did a swap deal for the shares in their companies. Shing On would get 4.2m $1 shares in Fu Chip, and Fu Chip bought all the shares of Shing On. Fu Chip bought all the shares in Shing On, and Pao received as payment 4.2m shares in Fu Chip (worth $2.50 for each $1 share). To ensure the share price of Fu C ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stilk V Myrick
''Stilk v Myrick'' King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_809EWHC_KB_J58is_an_English_contract_law_case_heard_in_the_Court_of_King's_Bench_(England)">King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_Consideration_under_English_law">consideration._In_his_verdict,_the_judge,_Edward_Law,_1st_Baron_Ellenborough.html" "title="Consideration_under_English_law.html" "title="English contract law">809EWHC KB J58is an English contract law case heard in the Court of King's Bench (England)">King's Bench on the subject of Consideration under English law">consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough">Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been distinguished from ''Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd'', which suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Williams V Roffey
is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration. Facts Roffey Bros was contracted by Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats at Twynholm Mansions, Lillie Road, London SW6. They subcontracted carpentry to Mr Lester Williams for £20,000 payable in instalments. Some work was done and £16,200 was paid. Then Williams ran into financial difficulty because the price was too low. Roffey Bros was going to be liable under a penalty clause for late completion, so they had a meeting on 9 April 1986 and promised an extra £575 per flat for on time completion. Williams did eight flats and stopped because he had only got £1,500. New carpen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Estoppel
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law. Types of estoppel There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration: * If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of ''promissory estoppel'' may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a co ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Roscorla V Thomas
''Roscorla v Thomas'' is a notable case in English contract law which demonstrates that past conduct is not sufficient consideration to support a contract. Facts An agreement for the purchase of a horse had been completed between buyer and seller. Following the completion of the contract, the seller made a warranty that the horse was "free from vice". Upon delivery, it was discovered by the buyer that the horse was vicious in behaviour. The buyer consequently sued. Judgement Lord Denman CJ delivered the judgement of the Court. "''It may be taken as a general rule, subject to exceptions not applicable to this case, that the promise must be coextensive with the consideration... a consideration past and executed will support no other promise than such as would be implied by law.''" The Court found for the defendant because his promise was unsupported by consideration. The consideration for the soundness warranty had already been made through the original contract of sale ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Glasbrook Bros V Glamorgan CC
''Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council'' 924UKHL 3 (19 December 1924) accessed 1 November 2016 is an and case concerning the liability of private parties paying for extra police protection. Facts During a strike, Glasbrook Brothers (the owners of a colliery) requested |
Tweddle V Atkinson
is an English contract law case concerning the principle of privity of contract and consideration. Its panel of appeal judges reinforced that the doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement (outside of one of the well-established exceptional relationships such as agency, bailment or trusteeship) may sue or be sued on it and established the principle that "consideration must flow from the promisee". Facts John Tweddle and William Guy mutually agreed in writing to pay sums of money (£100 and £200, respectively) to Tweddle's son William (who was engaged to Guy's daughter). Guy then died before payment, and when the estate would not pay, William Tweddle then sued Mr Atkinson, the executor of Guy's estate, for the promised £200. Judgment The court held that the suit would not succeed as no stranger to the consideration may enforce a contract, although made for his benefit. The court ruled that a promisee cannot bring an action unless the consideration ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hartley V Ponsonby
''Hartley v Ponsonby'' 85726 LJ QB 322 is a leading judgment on the subject of consideration in English contract law. The judgment constituted an amendment to the precedent set by ''Stilk v Myrick''809EWHC KB J58 that allowed contractual duties to be considered valid consideration for a future contract if the duties had changed to the extent that the original contract is considered discharged. Facts Hartley was contracted to crew a ship owned by Ponsonby. After docking, seventeen of the thirty-six man crew deserted, and only six of the remaining men were competent seamen.McKendrick (2007) 97 With so many crew members missing it was unsafe for the remaining crew to continue the voyage, but they agreed to do so after being promised extra pay once the ship docked. When the ship arrived at the home port, Ponsonby refused to pay the crewmen the extra wages he had promised. Judgment Lord Campbell CJ decided that although ''Stilk v Myrick'' 809 __NOTOC__ Year 809 (Roman numerals, D ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Currie V Misa
''Currie v Misa'' (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875–76) LR 1 App Cas 554, is an English contract law case, which in the Exchequer Chamber contains a famous statement by Lush J giving the definition of consideration in English law. Lush J said, Facts A company named Lizardi & Co, then in good credit in the City, sold four bills of exchange to Mr. Misa, drawn from a bank in Cadiz. Mr. Currie was the owner of the banking firm and the plaintiff bringing the action. The bills of exchange were sold on the 11th of February, and by the custom of the bill, brokers were to be paid for on the first foreign post-day following the day of the sale. That first day was the 14th of February. Lizardi & Co. was much in debt to his banking firm, and being pressed to reduce his balance, gave to the banker a draft or order on Mr. Misa for the amount of the four bills. This draft or order was dated on the 14th, though it was, in fact, written on the 13th, and then delivered to the banker. On the morning o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
