In the case of Foakes v. Beer (1884), Beer obtained a judgement against Foakes for a debt owed and costs in 1875. Over a year later the parties entered into an agreement to the effect that in consideration of Foakes paying Beer $500 in part contentment of the judgement debt and on condition that the balance will be paid by instalments, Beer would not continue on the judgement. In 1882 Beer took proceedings to carry out the judgement so as to recover interest on the judgement debt. It was accepted that the whole debt had now been paid off. The agreement could only be execute if there was consideration. The only present of consideration was the payment of $500 – which was the part of a larger debt already due. The payment of installments could not be consideration unless the payment of $500 was consideration. Part payment of a debt on or after the period of the debt is due is not good consideration for the creditors promise not to demand the balance. Based on Contract Act section 64 – Promisee may dispense with or remit performance of promise. Every promisee may dispense with wholly or in part, the performance of the promise is made to him. It may accept instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit. Illustrations (b) – A owes B RM5000. A paid RM2000 to B at the time period, B accepts in satisfaction of the whole debt which the RM5000 were payable. The whole debt is discharged. In the case Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh[1966] 1 MLJ 38, the appellant being judgment against the respondent for RM8,650. The respondent’s son offered to pay RM4, 000 as payment in completely to discharge his father from liability.The cheque was banked in and the money retained by the appellant’s solicitors. Later, the appellant is about bankruptcy, and... ... middle of paper ... ...ndy an annual rental of RM40, 000 of her dance school which Andy can rent as long as he like. Andy agreed. It is similar toKaruppan Chetty v Suah Thian, the court will held that the requirement of certainty was not met and based on section 30, the agreement become void. Two week before Nina leave for New York, the manager from Lily Ballet School has willing to rent Nina’s dance school for annual rental of Rm100, 000 for five years. Since the agreement between Nina and Andy is void, therefore Nina can enter an agreement with the manager from the Lily ballet school. Conclusion In conclusion, although it had valid offer and valid acceptance between Nina and Andy but the agreement is void due to uncertainty where lie under Contracts Act 1950 Section 30. So, the agreement between Nina and Andy is void; Nina can form an agreement with the manager from Lily ballet school.
Knowingly and willfully acts, a required element of AKS, was not the basis of the initial of the contract
The court used previous cases such as Sabah Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Limited [2007] to substantiate their decision “It was common ground that because of the forgery, the personal covenant contained in the mortgage was not enforceable”
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.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
The court rules in favor of Kalas who will recover the unpaid money from Cook and concluding that there was an enforceable contract between the two parties.
not morally be satisfied by this. More believed that when an oath is taken, one
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
that the only way they will marry is if she promises to obey his commands.
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
The most authoritative definition of consideration stems from Currie v Misa in which the judgement of Lord Justice Lush defines consideration as “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.” Consideration is therefore, in essence, the price for which a promise is bought. Normally, a promise cannot be contractually binding unless it is supported by some form of consideration and there are numerous rules surrounding it’s successful operation. These include: consideration must move from the promisee, consideration must not be past and consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr v Reserve Bank Of India & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 228 (Supreme Court of India).
...e requirement of an advantage to creditors is complied with. Through strict formalities the court can ensure that based on the detailed evidence provided by the debtor, with regards to his assets, income, expenditure and detailed explanation as to why he or she is insolvent, the court can base its decision on more accurate evidence.
In English Law consideration is one of the three main areas of an enforceable contract. It may be defined as an act, forbearance or promise made by a single party that constitutes the price for which the promise of another, is bought. In simple terms, the basic understanding of consideration may be seen as a ‘give and take’ tactic between two parties.