Introduction To introduce “consideration”, Currie v Misa (1875) define it as, “a valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in 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.” There also comes out a rule that “consideration must move from the promise”, means that a promise or an act means promise need to be state and find out the way to complete it. Otherwise, if any statement of apparent intention that is not a clear promise cannot function as consideration. Therefore, there must be an actual act that is performed a statement of promise. Consideration must consist, in the end, the way to complete the consideration and promise need to be state when the contract happened, but …show more content…
In the case of Williams’s v Roffey Brothers (1990) attracts much controversy. The case involved the defendants who were the main contractors on a building site, he also realizes that the subcontractor carpenters who has financial difficulties and threat the subcontractor by not completing the work. To ensure the claimants completed work on time the defendants offered them extra payments. This was because the defendants would have been taken a penalty just because if the work was not completed on time. The offer was accepted but when the payments were not asked the claimants sued for the payments. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the amount of money because the subcontractors were in financial difficulties and the defendants did obtain a benefit from the subcontractors work. They wouldn’t have to pay the penalty clause. The case has contributed to the criticisms of the consideration doctrine, that only one sided contract modifications need to be involving “the same for more”, but not “less for the same” modification (Atiyah,
Defining Issue: In order to make an agreement binding one element that must be used is consideration. Without consideration an agreement may not be enforceable, even if there has been an offer and acceptance. What a promiser demands and receives is the price for the promise, which is consideration. A person who makes the promise is called the promisor, while the person to whom the promise is made to is called the promisee. However, the promisor is not entitled to consideration.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
On September 9th, 1993 at around two in the morning, 17 year old Christopher Simmons, 15 year old Charlie Benjamin and 16 year old John Tessmer met at the home of 29 year old Brian Moomey. Moomey drove the three teens to the house of 46 year old Shirley Crook. Tessmer refused to go with them and ended up going back to his house. Simmons and Benjamin went to the back of Shirley Crook’s house, found a window and cracked it open. When they reached though to unlock the back door and entered the house, Simmons turned on the hallway light. The light woke her and she yelled out, “Who’s there?” Simmons walked into her bedroom and told her to get out of bed and lay on the floor. They duct taped her mouth and eyes and wrapped an electrical cord around
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
Pamela powers ,a ten year old girl disappeared .Williams was then seen near a YMCA building carrying a bundle wrapped in a blanket. There was 200 volunteers who conducted a landscape search. Williams then surrendered to local police and finally was arrested.
An aboriginal by the name of Victor Daniel Williams, was charged in the year 1993 with the robbery of a pizza parlour. He was elected a trial by judge and jury where he pleaded not guilty to the crime. His defence was one of mistaken identity. Nevertheless the jury convicted him of robbery . At his first trial, Williams applied to question potential jurors for racial bias under s. 638 of the Code. In support of his application, he filed materials alleging widespread racism against aboriginal people in Canadian society and an affidavit which stated, in part, “[I] hope that the 12 people that try me
For example, "A promises B that he would not enforce his legal rights and B acted and relied on it without giving any consideration, equity would not allow A to renege on his promise to B" (LawTeacher, n.d.).
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
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.”
Despite it’s longevity, consideration is not without criticism. Lord Goff observed in White v Jones that: ‘our law of contract is widely seen as deficient in the sense that it is perceived to be hampered by the presence of an unnecessary doctrine of consideration’. Abolition has been urged. Since the publication of the Law Revision Committee’s report in 1937, la...
The English contract Offer and Acceptance General principles There are three basic essentials to the creation of a contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration. The Definition of an Offer. This is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention (actual or apparent) that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it. An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons, or to the world at large.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
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.