|
Consideration
Consideration is a concept of English law, 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. It is commonly referred to as one of the six or seven elements of a contract. 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 treate ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs the law of contracts in India and is the principal legislation regulating contract law in the country. It is applicable to all states of India. It outlines the circumstances under which promises made by the parties to a contract become legally binding. Section 2(h) of the Act defines a contract as an agreement that is enforceable by law. Development and Structure The Act was enacted on 25 April 1872 and came into force on 1 September 1872. The Act, as enacted originally, had 266 Sections, divided into 11 chapters. * General Principles of Law of Contract – Sections 01 to 75 (Chapter 1 to 6) * Contract relating to Sale of goods - Sections 76 to 123 (Chapter 8 to 10) * Contracts relating to Partnership – Sections 239 to 266 (Chapter 11) Later, the sections of Chapter 7 and 11 were repealed, as they were incorporated into separate legislations namely, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. At present, the Indi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract
A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves consent to transfer of goods, services, money, or promise to transfer any of those at a future date. The activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured. Like other areas of private law, contract law varies between jurisdictions. In general, contract law is exercised and governed either under common law jurisdictions, civil law jurisdictions, or mixed-law jurisdictions that combine elem ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pao On V Lau Yiu Long
''Pao On v Lau Yiu Long'' Court of Appeal of Hong Kong decided by the 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 21-storey building then under construction called the "Wing On building", 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 Chip suffered no shock, Pao agreed not to sell 60% of the shares for at least one year. Also, in the event ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pinnel's Case
''Pinnel's Case'' (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237, also known as ''Pinnel v Cole'', is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. Sir Edward Coke reported the case. The case is authority for the proposition a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole. Facts Pinnel sued Cole, in an action of debt upon a bond, for the sum of £8 10s. The defendant, Cole, argued he had, at Pinnel's request, tendered £5 2s 2d before the debt was due, and the plaintiff had accepted in full satisfaction for the debt. Judgment The case reports the judgment as follows. ''Pinnel's case'' was applied by '' Foakes v Beer'' 884ref name=Foakes> and ''Jorden v Money'' 854 Commentary ''Pinnel's case'' concerned the doctrine of Accord and satisfaction, rather than Consideration. The judgement makes no reference to consideration; this may be because the action of assumpsit (for which consideration in the absence of a deed was requir ... [...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), an important English contract law case where the House of Lords 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". However, the cited passage is mere dicta, and not the basis for the decision. Function in contract law In English law, and other countries with similar common law systems, a binding legal contract requires that each party 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. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stilk V Myrick
''Stilk v Myrick'' 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's Ratio decidendi was limited by '' Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd'' in which the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Court of Appeal suggested that it ‘involved circumstances of a very special nature’ and that ‘ ere were strong public policy grounds at that time to protect the master and owners of a ship’ (per Purchas LJ). It was also suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic duress. Facts Stilk was contracted to work on a ship owned by Myrick for £5 a month, promising to do anything needed in the voyage regardless of emergencies.Poole (2004) p. 124 After the ship docked at Cronstadt two men deserted, and after failing to find replacements the captain promised the crew the ... [...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. Past consideration is not a good consideration. 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. Judgment Lord Denman CJ delivered the judgment 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 ... [...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 ''Stilk v Myrick'' Lord Ellenborough deci ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
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. John Tweddle died before he could sue for the money from Guys estate. 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 rule ... [...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 police protection in the ...[...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] |
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 11 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 14 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 of the 14th, the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
