The consideration has to have some value. In Malaysia the law said it may not have to be adequate but must be sufficient. This principle applied in the case of Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock In common law, a smaller amount of payment is not a satisfaction of an obligation to pay a larger sum. The rule was affirmed in Pinnel’s Case . Foakes v Beer In this case, Foakes owed Beer £2,090. Beer promises that she would not take any legal charge upon Foakes if he signed the agreement to pay the principal amount with interest. Foakes was in financial difficulties and had drew up an agreement requiring Beer to waive any interest on the amount owed. Therefore, Foakes only pay the principal amount but not the interest owed. Beer sued Foakes for the interest owed by Foakes. The court held that the payment of a lesser amount cannot be satisfaction of the whole. Section 64 allow part payment of consideration to be accepted as we can see in the case of Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh . In …show more content…
In other words, an offer is made when one party makes it clear, by actions or words that he is prepared to be bound as soon as the offer is accepted by the party to whom it is made. Offer can be classified into unilateral offers, bilateral offers and counter offers. Storer v Manchester City Council Defendant sent plaintiff a document titled ‘Agreement for Sale’ and the letter indicates that if Mr. Storer sign the Agreement and return it, the defendant will send Mr. Storer the Agreement signed on behalf of the council in exchange. Therefore, Mr. Storer signed and returned the ‘Agreement for Sale’, however, the defendant refused to sell the property to Mr. Storer. The court held that to a reasonable man, the defendant letter appeared to commit to sell the property if plaintiff returned the signed document. Thus, it was an offer. Thornton v Shoe Lane
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
When past services are rendered with a promise to pay, the court may enforce the promise to pay. However in Dementas’s case, the service was rendered after the promise to pay. The court found that Dementas’s services were rendered with no expectation of payment from Tallas. Moral obligation was created after some courts found the ruling to be too harsh. Even if moral obligation was applied to Dementas’s case, the court found that Dementas performed all services without expecting any payments in
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
Impatience kills In “The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare, two very young people fall in love but cannot be with each other because of the feud between their families. The feud ends when Romeo and Juliet both kill themselves because of heartbreak over the other. The minor characters Mercutio, Tybalt, and Friar Lawrence serve as foils to Romeo, to help support the theme of patience. While Romeo is impatient and makes rash and hasty decisions, Friar Lawrence is careful and takes time to consider his actions. First Romeo thinks that he is in love with a nun named Rosaline, but a couple hours later he is asking the Friar to marry him to another girl she had just met.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
The case at hand takes place under commercial paper law. Commercial paper is a written instrument or document such as a check, promissory note, or a certificate of deposit, that represents a duty of one individual to pay money to another. A standout amongst the most critical parts of commercial paper is that it is negotiable, which implies that it might be unreservedly exchanged starting with one party then onto the next, usually through indorsement. Since commercial paper constitutes personal paper, it is transferable by deal—and could be credited, lost, stolen, and burdened. A promissory note is a two-party paper that consists of the maker (the person who
The doctrine of unconscionable bargains can be regarded as difficult to define but various cases have succeeded in refining the doctrine to a simple understanding. In Evans v Llewllin, unconscionable bargains is a well established jurisdiction in equity to relief against transaction regarded as considerably disadvantageous to the complainant, who is in a special position of weakness compared to the defendant and where transaction was procured by the defendant in a morally culpable manner. The power to provide equitable relief from unconscionable bargains stems from the Court of Chancery’s power to set aside agreements with expectant heirs that had been pressured into entering contracts as a result of their ignorance and poverty, this was evident in Earl of Aylesford v Morris. Fry v Lane established this principle of law, with Kay J stating that ‘where a purchase is made from a poor and ignorant man at a considerable undervalue, the vendor having no independent advice, a Court of Equity will set aside the transaction’. It is not enough for the terms of an agreement to be unconscionable or unfair, making it more favorable to the defendant than the complainant; it must show defendant’s conduct is unconscionable. Capper noted, the doctrine struggled in adapting to the declining need of expectant heirs in the early twentieth century and was abandoned until its reappearance in Cresswell v Potter where the elements of the doctrine where not just incorporated to suggest a party ‘’of a lower income group and less highly educated’’ but the concept in regards to expectant heirs was disregarded. Over the years it had become significantly popular in cases where one party had been mistreated due t...
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
Overall therefore, the court considers Milroy as good and valid law. The principle established in Milroy has been the focal point of judicial decisions and the major influence on the attitude of the judiciary. The courts, no matter how onerous a situation may be or the trend in the development of the law, they seek to ensure that the Milroy principle is not violated, thus its re-emphasis in Re Rose . Over the years, some form of flexibility has been seen by the courts towards the enforceability of imperfect gifts. However, despite the caveats characteristic of Re Rose , the courts still considers the case to be good authority proved by its subsequent application in Mascall v Mascall and its approval in Vandervell v IRC .
An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons or to the world at large. The offeror is bound to fulfil the terms of his offer once it is accepted. The offer may be made in writing, by words or conduct.
To understand the civil liabilities and or remedies demanded between Andy, Sam and Bob, this can only do so if there is an appreciation of the existence of a contract between them. For this to be envisaged, then the requirements of a contract must be manifested. For a contract to be envisaged it must be mutually accepted by both parties and the manifestation of the principle of consensus ad idem (Holmes, 1897). The US Supreme Court in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v United States, held that where the meeting of the minds was not realized, then no party to the contract can bind the other to it, and as such a nullity. As between Andy and HOTMOTORS there existed this upon the agreement to buy a car which was to the liking of Andy. There must also be an offer and an acceptance for it to be binding. In this case the offer was by HOTMOTORS to which Andy accepted. There ought to be consideration which is deemed to be a core element for the formation of a contract. The rule is that the court troubles itself not in the adequacy of the consideration but rather its sufficiency. To this end, Andy paid $ 8 000 for the car despite its actual worth as opinioned by Maryam value of $ 40.
Thus, Bernie is making an offer when she consents to buy the car stated as RM10 000. Bernie implies her willingness to buy the car marked RM10 000 with the expectation that Roland will sell the car to her at this price. Obviously, Bernie is the offeror.... ... middle of paper ... ...
No offer was made to David so therefore no contract was formed. David offered to pay 10% more than the initial price that was listed and stated that he wasn 't going to be able to pick up the car until a month later, this shows he had made a counteroffer. He made an offer which was different from that which was originally stated and therefore the original offer had been destroyed meaning that the original offer was no longer open for David to accept. The case of Hyde v Wrench makes it clear that a counter offer amounts to a destruction of the original offer so therefore, no contact is formed. In this case, the defendant offered to sell his farm for a certain price but the claimant offered to buy it for a price lower than what was listed.The court held that where a counter offer is made this destroys the original offer so that it is no longer open to the offeree to accept so there was no contract.To create a contract, there must be common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations, which would be mutually communicated in an expressed or implied manner. Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd clearly rebutted the presumption which normally exists in commercial agreements that the parties intend to be legally
In the case of one party promising to give another party £50, it is merely seen as a gift, therefore this is considered unenforceable as a simple contract. This may be justifiable as there is nothing which clearly illustrates that, it is a necessity for a party to give something, in order for them to be able to enforce a promise. This is also known as the “quid pro quo,” it has been similarly illustrated in; Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] AC 847 (HL).