Considerations in the early days are known to be difficult to be defined with simple words. However, in Bunn v Guy it is defined as “ loss or inconvenience suffered by one party at the request of the other ”. Furthermore, in Thomas v Thomas it is stated to be defined as “some detriment to the plaintiff or some benefit to the defendant”. It is also stated in a well known definition in Currie v Misa which is also the one that has drawn criticism that consideration is “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other “. For instance if I contract with A with my phone for $1000, I will be gaining the benefit of the $1000, but at the
…show more content…
Adequacy means the fairly equal values between the two. Nevertheless, adequacy is decided by the parties themselves, as everyone has their different definition of fairness. In the other hand, sufficiency is real, and must have actual values in it. Even if there are bad bargains for any party of the contract, the contract can still be valid. To others it might seem like the deal is not adequate between Amy and David as Amy will gain no good out of David achieving well in his degree. However she promised to give him £1,000 if he obtains a second class degree. David then achieved a first class degree and this is a sufficient consideration. It shows some economic value as the £1,000 induced him to work and obtain his first class degree, otherwise he might not have study to achieve this. Hence with a valid consideration, Amy is bound with her promises to David. An example can be seen in Chappell v Nestle Co, as the court held that “the chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration. They had some economic value because they induced people to buy chocolate which they might otherwise not have bought.” It is also shown that a consideration does not need to benefit the promisor in the case of Hamer v Sidway , similarly with the case of Amy and David. “When an offer is ambiguous regarding whether acceptance shall be in the form of performance or an exchange of promises, …show more content…
Joint-owners of a patent wrote to the claimant agreeing to give him a one-third share of the patents in return for his services as a manager of their patents. When the claimant wanted to enforce this agreement, the joint-owners claimed that the agreement was for his past services and they are not bound with the promise as it is a past consideration. However, Bowen LJ held that there was an implied promise. With the claimant managing the patents, he will be paid for his work. Whether or not there will be assumptions that any service will be paid for depends on the situation. Another example would be if my car broke down in the middle of the road and I called the mechanics to fix my car, it would already be assumed that I will be paying for the service. However, if I called my friends with the exact same request, then it would be a different
Adequacy means the fairly equal values between the two. Nevertheless, adequacy is decided by the parties themselves, as everyone has their different definition of fairness. In the other hand, sufficiency is real, and must have actual values in it. Even if there are bad bargains for any party of the contract, the contract can still be valid. To others it might seem like the deal is not adequate between Amy and David as Amy will gain no good out of David achieving well in his degree. However she promised to give him £1,000 if he obtains a second class degree. David then achieved a first class degree and this is a sufficient consideration. It shows some economic value as the £1,000 induced him to work and obtain his first class degree, otherwise he might not have study to achieve this. Hence with a valid consideration, Amy is bound with her promises to David. An example can be seen in Chappell v Nestle Co, as the court held that “the chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration. They had some economic value because they induced people to buy chocolate which they might otherwise not have bought.” It is also shown that a consideration does not need to benefit the promisor in the case of Hamer v Sidway , similarly with the case of Amy and David. “When an offer is ambiguous regarding whether acceptance shall be in the form of performance or an exchange of promises, …show more content…
Joint-owners of a patent wrote to the claimant agreeing to give him a one-third share of the patents in return for his services as a manager of their patents. When the claimant wanted to enforce this agreement, the joint-owners claimed that the agreement was for his past services and they are not bound with the promise as it is a past consideration. However, Bowen LJ held that there was an implied promise. With the claimant managing the patents, he will be paid for his work. Whether or not there will be assumptions that any service will be paid for depends on the situation. Another example would be if my car broke down in the middle of the road and I called the mechanics to fix my car, it would already be assumed that I will be paying for the service. However, if I called my friends with the exact same request, then it would be a different