The Case Of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd

794 Words 4 Pages
2.2 Consideration need not move from the promisee In English law, consideration must move from the promisee but need not move to the promisor. The sufficient consideration in English Law is that the person who signifies the willingness must enforce a promise to show that he or she has provided consideration. In case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd (1915), Dunlop (plaintiff) make an agreement with Dew (third party) that they would not sell the tyres at less than the listed price excepts for retailers. However, the retailers also cannot sell the tyres at less than the listed price. Dew sells the tyres at listed price to Selfridge (defendant) and Selfridge agree to not sell tyres at less than listed price and Selfridge willing to pay 5 pounds if they violate the agreement. Selfridge proceeded to sell tyres at less than listed price and Dunlop sued for the payment. In this case, the court held that there was no consideration or contract between Dunlop and Selfridge under …show more content…
In the other words, part payment of debt could not extinguish the duty to become full settlement of debt. If Terry has contractual obligation to pay James a debt payment while James accepts to forgone part of Terry’s payment. In this situation, there is no consideration according to English law as the rest payment of debt of Terry is not consideration for James’ promise. (Riches & Allen, P.218) In case of Pinnel’s case (1961), Pinnel sued Cole because Cole owed Pinnel £8.50. Cole payed £5.2 to Pinnel at his request before the date was due. Pinnel accepted £5.2 in full settlement of the debt. The judgment was given to plaintiff. This is due to the reason that judge predicate payment of smaller sum satisfaction of larger sum cannot be any satisfaction for whole. The larger sum can be satisfaction of paid in smaller sum but in chattel instead of money may more benefit than money such as horse, hawk, or

Related Documents

Related Topics