A lady lived with her three grown up children in a house and one of her daughter in law did some decorating and later the ladies grown up children promise to pay the daughter in law $488.
There was a document signed between the daughter in law and the lady’s children so to make the promise effective.
It was held that the promise was not enforceable due to the fact that the promise was made after the act of the daughter law has been done. Therefore , in this case it is past consideration.
Lampleigh v Braithwait
In this case, the defendant which is Braithwait murdered someone and asked a favour from the plaintiff which is Lampleigh to give him a pardon today. Lampleigh …show more content…
Both sides if the parties must understand that the conducted act is to be remunerated through payment or conferment of some benefit. This conferment or benefit, must fulfill the condition of being legally enforceable in the eyes of the law.
Chapple v Nestle
The defendant were running a special offer in which case the members of the public could earn a music record by sending off wrappers of Nestle’s chocolate bar with some money. Since the copyright of the records was owned by Chapple who claimed that there had been breaches to their copyright. The issue here raised was whether the three wrappers that were claimed by Nestle was part of the consideration
It was held that the wrappers were part of the valid consideration even though they have no value but in the eyes of the law, they are valuable. Price & Easton
Easton made a contract with x in return for x doing work for him. Easton will pay the price of $19 to x. The work was done by x but Eaton did not pay the amount he promised. This leads to Price being sued. It was held that Price claimed must fail and is invalid as he had not provided …show more content…
Once the work had begun, it is clear that Williams underestimated the working cost and was involved in financial difficulties.
Roffey who was concerned about the work being not completed on time and that as a result they will be in trouble of falling foul of a penalty clause in their main contract with the owner agreed to pay Williams an extra payment per flat. Williams completed the work as he was abide to do so but did not received full payment. He quit the work and brought an action for damages in the COA. Roffey argued that Williams was only doing what he ws contractually bound t do and so there was no consideration provided on Roffey’s behalf.
It was held that when a party to an existing contract, agrees to pay an extra bonus on order to ensure that the other party performs his obligations under the contract then the agreement will be binding if the party whom agrees to pay the bonus has thereby obtained dome new practical advantage or avoided a disadvantage. In the present case there were benefits to Roffey including the issue of making sureWilliams continues his work, avoiding payment under a damages clause of the main contract if Williams was late in fulfilling his duties and or so including avoiding the expense and trouble of hiring another person to do his work. Therefore, Williams was entitled to the