Assignment 1 Essays

1170 Words May 9th, 2013 5 Pages
Definition - Currie v Misa (1875) provides an accepted definition of consideration which is a vital element in a contract. A well-known principle of the law of contract holds that consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate. It means that consideration must be of identifiable value whatever how small it is but cannot be as same valuable as the other party’s one. (Nicola, 2010 P44) However, when the duty arose under a previous contract with the same person, it is an existing duty also an insufficient consideration. Similarly, when the duty arose under the general law of the land or when the duty arose under a previous contract with a third party, it performs as an existing duty. (Nicola, 2010 P45)

Is there any
…show more content…
Satterthwaite& Co [1974] (Privy Council). A business which had agreed with a ship owner that it would unload a ship (contract 1) could give the same promise to unload the ship to the owner of the goods on the ship(contract 2). The claimant was entitled in two separate contracts which applied with the principle. (Nicola, 2010 P46)

In the case Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd [1990] (Court of Appeal), economic duress is considered as the claimant had enabled the defendants to avoid paying the damages to the owner of the flats and saved them the trouble of finding a different carpenter. The key point is that the defendant Roffey received it as a benefit. It is a case arguing whether the claimant is or is not entitled to the extra payment. (Nicola, 2010 P47)

Is there any sufficient consideration provided by the police for the promise of£3,000 by Northampton Town FC or is they just carrying out their legal duties?

Northampton Town FC made a contract with the police that they would pay them £3,000 for 20 officers at the game but finally refused to pay. The police, as a governmental agency, have legal liability to maintain law and order through patrol. That is not a valid consideration to promise to perform a duty because it is imposed by the law. See the case Collins v Godefroy (1831) which prove the same principle. The claimant subpoenaed to attend the trial and the defendant promised to pay him six guineas if he actually did attend and give evidence for the

Related Documents