A promise to fulfil an already existing contractual obligation owed to a third party (as opposed to the performance of that obligation) may also constitute consideration. [17] The Court of Appeal held in Re Selectmove Ltd[33] that the Williams/Roffey doctrine of practical advantage[29] cannot be invoked as an additional exception to the rule. In this case, it was decided that the doctrine applies only if the original promise was a promise to pay extra and not to pay less. In Re Selectmove,[33] the Court of Appeal was unable to distinguish between Foakes v Beer (a decision of the House of Lords)[25] to apply Williams v. Roffey (a decision of the Court of Appeal). [29] It therefore remains to be seen whether the House of Lords would decide otherwise. In any event, the principle of equity in debt forfeiture may provide relief to the debtor. [34] Consideration can be anything of value (such as goods, money, services or promises from one of them) that each party gives in exchange for its share of the market. Mutual promises are a consideration for each other. [1] If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a “mere promise” and unenforceable. Not all trade agreements stipulate that the performance of an existing obligation should constitute consideration, some circumstances mean that the performance of an existing obligation cannot constitute consideration. However, if the promisor does more than public duty requires, then this is a good consideration. In Ward v Byham, a mother was legally required to care for her child.
The ex-husband promised to pay her £1 a week if she made sure the child was well cared for and happy. It was found that, despite the legal obligation imposed on the mother, she was able to enforce the promise because making the baby “happy” provided additional consideration. [22] In the case of William V. Roffey Bros and Nicholls,[3] the principle of practical utility was developed. There was an agreement between the contractor and the owner to renovate 27 apartments in the building. The woodwork contractor awarded work to Williams. The contractor promised William a sum of 20,000 euros in payments for the 27 carpentry apartments. After the completion of the partial works, Wilhelm received 16200 euros. William had a financial crisis and was afraid of whether he would be able to finish the job on time because of the slightest consideration he had accepted. The defendants, in order to do their job on time, offered William an additional sum of 575 euros. After the completion of eight apartments, the defendants refused to pay the additional amount they had promised. They paid William only 1500 euros for the completion of eight apartments, which left William with no choice but to prosecute the accused.
In that case, the court ruled that the defendants were required to pay the additional amount to William because he had offered good consideration. Among the advantages enjoyed by the defendants, according to the court, were: the time and effort required to find a new carpenter, in addition, they were able to complete the work on time and avoid the additional fine that would have been the case if they had delayed the completion of the work. Continue by promising William; Both parties agreed that the amount previously offered for the assigned work was very small. Therefore, in the Court`s view, the new promise was legally binding. After this case, the practical advantage was noted due to the different changes that take place in the store on a daily basis. The difference between the existing customs rule and the practical advantages lies in the fact that, under the existing customs rule, both parties cannot require payment or additional services after an agreement has been concluded or concluded. On the contrary, under the rule of practical benefits, the promise may claim additional benefits if there is a risk or if the promise has been kept beyond its duty. [4] An undertaking is enforceable if it is supported by a counterparty, i.e. if the counterparty has distanced itself from the promisor.
For example, in Tweddle v. Atkinson,[20] John Tweddle promised William Guy that he would pay a sum of money to William Guy`s child, and similarly, William Guy John Tweddle promised that he would pay John Tweddle`s child a sum of money if the two children were married. However, William Guy did not pay John Tweddle`s son, who then sued his executors for the promised amount. It was believed that the son could not enforce the promise he had made to his father, because he himself had not really considered it – it was rather his father who had done it. The son has not received any consideration in return, so he cannot enforce the promise. This particular rule of consideration forms the basis of the doctrine of the confidentiality of a contract, i.e. only one contracting party may bring an action against the terms of this contract. (Note that the privacy doctrine was slightly modified by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.) Therefore, the counterpart of the propensity of the provocateur was lenient towards the claim. While consideration must shift from the promisor, it does not necessarily have to go to the promisor. The promisor may provide consideration to a third party if this is agreed at the time of the conclusion of the contract by the parties. [11] FULFILLING AN EXISTING DUTY: In Thomas V.
Thomas,[5] the husband made it clear that if his wife survived him, she could have the house for herself. After the man`s death, the woman agreed with her husband`s executor that she would have the house until she remarried. The agreement was reached by the husband`s executor against his express request. The woman had to pay a pound to the executor to enjoy the house. This agreement has been reconsidered. In practice, the already existing mandatory rule also preserves the integrity of a contract by preventing the parties from using leverage to force other parties to make changes to the contract. [2] Let`s take an example: the existing obligation refers to a promise that was already in the picture before the conclusion of a contract. If the promise contains something that goes beyond this existing duty, it can be called a quid pro quo. According to the Orthodox view, an existing obligation cannot constitute consideration.
The existing mandatory rule states that the performance of an already existing obligation cannot be used as consideration in support of a valid contract. [1] In Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1959), Lord Somervell stated: “A party may determine the consideration it chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be a good consideration if it is determined that the promising pepper does not like and will throw away the corn. [14] INTRODUCTION: If an offer is made by one party to another with the intention of entering into a legally valid contract, and such an offer is accepted by the other party, then there is an agreement between these two parties. If this agreement is valid in the eyes of the law, it will result in a contract. The order in which a contract is concluded includes: offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations. You can`t call it a contract if one of those contracts is missing. Agreements refer to the acceptance of the offer by the promisor. If this Agreement is accompanied by valid and legal consideration as well as the intention to enter into a legal contract, this agreement, to the extent that the law enforces it, will be called a contract. In this case,[2] Stilk was hired by Myrick to work on a ship on a contractual basis.
He was promised to pay £5 a month during the trip. Two crews could not be replaced. Until Myrick found a replacement, he promised the rest of the crew that he would share the salaries of the two crew members equally with each other, provided they fulfilled the duty of both crew members with theirs. Upon his return to London, Myrick was unable to keep his promise, and Stilk sued Myrick for it. The plaintiff argued that the crew did not receive the amount promised by Myrick. The respondent argued that it was the duty of the crew to ensure that the ship returned to the home port and that, in that case, there was no consideration on the part of the crew. According to the already existing rule, if both parties have agreed to do something in accordance with a legal contract, they cannot change the terms of the contract without further consideration. The court in this case therefore ruled that the crew is not allowed to receive extra pounds. .