|
Consideration Under English Law
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts (but not for special contracts by deed). The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States. Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money, services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid pro quo to support their side of the bargain. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a "bare promise" and is unenforceable. Value According to ''Currie v Misa'', consideration for a particular promise exists where some ''right'', ''interest'', ''profit'' or ''benefit'' accrues (''or will accrue'') to the promisor as a direct result of some ''forbearance'', ''detriment'', ''loss'' or ''responsibility'' that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promisee. Forbearance to act amounts to consideratio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law
English law is the common law list of national legal systems, legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly English criminal law, criminal law and Civil law (common law), civil law, each branch having its own Courts of England and Wales, courts and Procedural law, procedures. The judiciary is judicial independence, independent, and legal principles like Procedural justice, fairness, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial are foundational to the system. Principal elements Although the common law has, historically, been the foundation and prime source of English law, the most authoritative law is statutory legislation, which comprises Act of Parliament, Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instrument, regulations and by-laws. In the absence of any statutory law, the common law with its principle of ''stare decisis'' forms the residual source of law, based on judicial decisions, custom, and usage. Common law is made by sitting judges who apply both United Kingdom l ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet
Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet PC, FBA (10 December 1845 – 18 January 1937) was an English jurist best known for his ''History of English Law before the Time of Edward I'', written with F.W. Maitland, and his lifelong correspondence with US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He was a member of the Cambridge Apostles. Life Pollock was the eldest son of William Frederick Pollock, Master of the Court of Exchequer, and Juliet Creed, daughter of the Rev, Harry Creed. He was the grandson of Sir Frederick Pollock, 1st Baronet, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the great-nephew of Field Marshal Sir George Pollock, 1st Baronet, and the first cousin of Ernest Pollock, 1st Viscount Hanworth, Master of the Rolls. He was educated at Eton College, where he was a King's Scholar, and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was elected Fellow in 1868 (later Honorable Fellow in 1920).''For My Grandson'' (1933) John Murray, Note B: ''Personal Dates'' In 1871 he was adm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Collins V Godefroy
Collins may refer to: People Surname Given name * Collins O. Bright (1917–?), Sierra Leonean diplomat * Collins Chabane (1960–2015), South African Minister of Public Service and Administration * Collins Cheboi (born 1987), Kenyan middle-distance runner * Collins Denny (1854–1943), American Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South * Collins Denny Jr. (1899–1964), American pro-segregationist lawyer. * Collins Hagler (born 1935), Canadian football player * Collins Injera (born 1986), Kenyan rugby player * Collins John (born 1985), Liberia-born Dutch footballer * Collins H. Johnston (1859–1936), American football player, medical doctor, surgeon, and civic leader * Collins Mbesuma (born 1984), Zambian footballer nicknamed ''The Hurricane'' or ''Ntofontofo'' * Collins Mensah (born 1961), Ghanaian sprinter * Collins Nweke (born 1965), Belgian politician of the Green Party * Collins Obuya (born 1981), Kenyan cricketer Companies * COLLINS, American design com ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contracts (Rights Of Third Parties) Act 1999
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c. 31) is an Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom, Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law Privity in English law, doctrine of privity and "thereby [removed] one of the most universally disliked and criticised lacuna (law), blots on the legal landscape".Dean (2000) p.143 The second rule of the doctrine of privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided Consideration in English law, consideration, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft Bill (proposed law), bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 199 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity In English Law
Privity is a doctrine in English contract law that covers the relationship between parties to a contract and other parties or agents. At its most basic level, the rule is that a contract can neither give rights to, nor impose obligations on, anyone who is not a party to the original agreement, i.e. a "third party". Historically, third parties could enforce the terms of a contract, as evidenced in ''Provender v Wood'', but the law changed in a series of cases in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the most well known of which are ''Tweddle v Atkinson'' in 1861 and ''Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co Ltd'' in 1915. The doctrine was widely seen as unfair, for various reasons – it made no exception for cases where the parties to a contract obviously intended for it to be enforced by a third party, and it was so inconsistently applied that it provided no solid rule and was therefore "bad" law. The doctrine attracted criticism from figures such as Leslie Scarman, Baron Scarman, ... [...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] |
Callisher V Bischoffsheim
''Callisher v Bischoffsheim'' (1869–70) LR 5 QB 449 is an English contract law case concerning consideration. It held that the compromise of a disputed claim made '' bonâ fide'' is a good consideration for a promise, even if it ultimately appears that the claim was wholly unfounded. Facts Callisher alleged that money was owed to him from the Government of Honduras, and was about to take proceedings to enforce payment. In consideration that the plaintiff would forbear taking such proceedings for an agreed time, the defendant promised to deliver to Callisher a set of Honduras Railway Loan Bonds. But then, they did not deliver the debentures, and argued that their promise to do so was unenforceable because the original suit was groundless. Judgment The Queen's Bench held the contract was enforceable because even if the suit was groundless, forbearing to sue could count as a valuable consideration. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the following: Blackburn J concurred: Lush ... [...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] |
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] |
