Register to read the introduction…
According to Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd V Edward Leong & Ors (1982) 2 MLJ 22, Damien’s request for an extra cost of $5,000 in order to complete the construction of the pool is specific, ascertainable and constitutes a valid offer. .Generally speaking, there can be no contract unless and until an offer has been accepted. It appears from the facts of the case that Jason Miao accepted the offer by agreeing to pay the extra $5,000 and such acceptance was communicated to Damien (Entores Ltd v Miles Far Each Corp. (1955) 2 QB 327).
In addition, in the case established that as long as the parties are willing to contract on certain terms, and an agreement is made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed, the
Likewise, the introduction of a new term of the original contract requires fresh consideration. The general rule of consideration is illustrated inillustrated in the case Stilk v Myrick (1809) EWHC KB J58. It has been established in Stilk that there may be insufficient consideration where the promise is under an existing duty to the promisor to perform an act which is to be the purported consideration. As there is already an agreement between Damien and Jason Miao for the construction of the swimming pool, Jason Miao may be able to go back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000 due to lack of …show more content…
The general principle is that unless the debtor provides fresh consideration in t, an agreement to discharge a liquidated debt by the payment of a smaller sum will be void. This is known the ‘Rule in Pinnel’s Case’. According Pinnel’s Case (1602) Co. Rep. 117a, part payment of a debt is no consideration for discharge of the whole debt. The rule was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (HL). and endorsed in Singapore in the case of Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (citation??). Therefore, prima facie, Jason Miao’s part payment of $20,000 to pay the whole debt of $35,000 would not be considered a discharge of its debt to …show more content…
Rep. 117a. iIt was held, amongst other, that if a new element is introduced to which the creditor was not already entitled, such as in the court that the payment before the due day at the creditor’s request, provided the new element is introduced for the creditor’s benefit and not merely the debtor’s convenience, is valid consideration (Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd [1933] 2 KB 223 (ECA)). This exception should not be applicable to the current case because (i) it was Jason Miao (the debtor) and not Damien (the creditor) who made the request for a smaller sum, and (ii) the promise to pay a lesser sum was made after the due day, when Damien has already completed the work. creditor’s promise to accept a smaller sum would be binding if he ask the debtor to pay that smaller amount before the due date at creditor’s request. According to this principle, Damien is entitled to the remaining $15000 as he did not voluntarily agrees to accept the lesser sum of $20000 in
In addition, in the case established that as long as the parties are willing to contract on certain terms, and an agreement is made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed, the
Likewise, the introduction of a new term of the original contract requires fresh consideration. The general rule of consideration is illustrated inillustrated in the case Stilk v Myrick (1809) EWHC KB J58. It has been established in Stilk that there may be insufficient consideration where the promise is under an existing duty to the promisor to perform an act which is to be the purported consideration. As there is already an agreement between Damien and Jason Miao for the construction of the swimming pool, Jason Miao may be able to go back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000 due to lack of …show more content…
The general principle is that unless the debtor provides fresh consideration in t, an agreement to discharge a liquidated debt by the payment of a smaller sum will be void. This is known the ‘Rule in Pinnel’s Case’. According Pinnel’s Case (1602) Co. Rep. 117a, part payment of a debt is no consideration for discharge of the whole debt. The rule was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (HL). and endorsed in Singapore in the case of Euro-Asia Realty Pte Ltd v Mayfair Investment Pte Ltd (citation??). Therefore, prima facie, Jason Miao’s part payment of $20,000 to pay the whole debt of $35,000 would not be considered a discharge of its debt to …show more content…
Rep. 117a. iIt was held, amongst other, that if a new element is introduced to which the creditor was not already entitled, such as in the court that the payment before the due day at the creditor’s request, provided the new element is introduced for the creditor’s benefit and not merely the debtor’s convenience, is valid consideration (Vanbergen v St Edmunds Properties Ltd [1933] 2 KB 223 (ECA)). This exception should not be applicable to the current case because (i) it was Jason Miao (the debtor) and not Damien (the creditor) who made the request for a smaller sum, and (ii) the promise to pay a lesser sum was made after the due day, when Damien has already completed the work. creditor’s promise to accept a smaller sum would be binding if he ask the debtor to pay that smaller amount before the due date at creditor’s request. According to this principle, Damien is entitled to the remaining $15000 as he did not voluntarily agrees to accept the lesser sum of $20000 in