Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Consider Tai On

    Uploaded by

    Lee Ka Fai
    1. Past consideration is generally not valid consideration for a promise. Consideration must be given at the same time as the promise or after the promise is made. 2. An exception exists when services are performed at another's request and a subsequent promise is made to pay for those services, if both parties believed at the time the services were provided that payment would be made. 3. Consideration does not need to benefit the promisor, but must involve detriment to the promisee, such as providing services, goods, or refraining from legal action.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Consider Tai On

    Uploaded by

    Lee Ka Fai
    32 views1 page
    1. Past consideration is generally not valid consideration for a promise. Consideration must be given at the same time as the promise or after the promise is made. 2. An exception exists when services are performed at another's request and a subsequent promise is made to pay for those services, if both parties believed at the time the services were provided that payment would be made. 3. Consideration does not need to benefit the promisor, but must involve detriment to the promisee, such as providing services, goods, or refraining from legal action.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Past consideration is generally not valid consideration for a promise. Consideration must be given at the same time as the promise or after the promise is made. 2. An exception exists when services are performed at another's request and a subsequent promise is made to pay for those services, if both parties believed at the time the services were provided that payment would be made. 3. Consideration does not need to benefit the promisor, but must involve detriment to the promisee, such as providing services, goods, or refraining from legal action.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    Consider Tai On

    Uploaded by

    Lee Ka Fai
    1. Past consideration is generally not valid consideration for a promise. Consideration must be given at the same time as the promise or after the promise is made. 2. An exception exists when services are performed at another's request and a subsequent promise is made to pay for those services, if both parties believed at the time the services were provided that payment would be made. 3. Consideration does not need to benefit the promisor, but must involve detriment to the promisee, such as providing services, goods, or refraining from legal action.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CONSIDERTAION Past Considertaion: Past consideration is not good consideration.

    Consideration is past when the promise is made after the act or performance and is usually independent of it Roscorla v Thomas Exception When services are performed at anothers request and a subsequent promise is made for payment, that promise will be enforceable if, when it was made, both parties were under the assumption that services were to be paid for Lampleigh v Braithwait Consideration must move from the promisee but does not need to move to the promisor Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge & Co In the case of joint promisees it is sufficient if the consideration is given by one party on behalf of all parties Coulls v Bagots Excecutor & Trustee Co Ltd Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law A moral obligation to perform a promise does not constitute good consideration Eastwood v Kenyon The act or forebearance constituting consideration must be done in reliance of the promise, and not done for other reasons Combe v Combe Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate Chappell & Co v Nestle Where a public duty is imposed on the plt, performance of the duty is insufficient consideration for the def promise of payment for the performance of that duty Collins v Godefroy But if they act in access of that duty that performance will be sufficient consideration to support the promise of payment Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council Where the plt is bound by a contractual duty to the def, performance of that duty will not amount to sufficient consideration to support a further promise of payment by the def Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd; Williams v Roffery Bros Where the plt is bound by an existing contract to a 3rd party, performance of the duty is sufficient consideration for the def promise Shadwell v Shadwell In certain circumstances, giving up the right to sue in return for a settlement may be good consideration Callisher v Bischoffsheim Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the promise to forgo the balance Pinnels Case However, equitable estoppel may in some circumstances be used to evade the rule in Pinnels Case A forebearance to sue may constitute goo consideration even if there is a chance that the proposed action would not have succeeded. The promisee must show The action must not be frivolous or vexatious The plt in the action must believe that he or she has a reasonable chance of success The plt must not knowingly conceal from the def any fact that could affect the validity of the claim Callisher v Bischoffsheim

    You might also like