of 13


Published on 2 weeks ago | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 0 | Comments: 0



Did Amy bound by her promise? In Amy’s case, have no doubt, Amy is the oferor who provides an ofer to Beryl and her amily who have accepted it by receive Amy’s money or others. However, there are requirements requirements to orm a valid contract other than ofer and acceptance, that are, intention to create legal relation and consideration. hat is consideration! It can be describe as being something which represent either some bene"t to the person ma#ing a promise or some detriment to the person to whom the promise is made. $he term consideration is given to the sub%ect that is e&changed in a contract. ' It is a undamental prerequisite in (nglish contract law.


 $he courts has e&plained the consideration consideration in the case o Dunlop v Self Se lfri ridg dge e3 in terms o purchase and sale. $he claimant must show that he

or she has bought the deendant’s promise by doing, giving or promising p romising something in return or it. The basic rule is a promise will not be enforceable unless it is supported by consideration.

hile the element o intention to create legal relation too will afect the validity o promises between Amy and Beryl, *avid, and +harlie. o, there

consideration. $he "rst one is +onsideration which is called '  $here have two types o consideration. -e&ecutory-e&ecutory- where there is an e&change o promises to perorm acts in the uture, or e&ample, a bilateral contract or the supply o goods whereby. whereby. A promises to deliver goods to B at a uture date and B promises to pay on delivery. delivery. I A does d oes not deliver them, this is a breach o contract and B can sue. I A delivers the goods his consideration then becomes e&ecuted. I one party ma#es a promise in e&change or an act by the other party, when that act is completed, it is e&ecuted consideration.

) Available at http//www http//www.inbrie .inbrie.co.u#/contract .co.u#/contract0law/consideration0in0contract. 0law/consideration0in0contract.htm htm accessed )1 April )2'3 4 *unlop 5neumatic $yre +o 6td v elridge 7 +o 6td 8'9'3: ;<H6 ', 8'9'3: A+ 1=> '

is a question that is there an intention to create legal relation between Amy and each o Beryl’s amily! As ar as this topic is concern, contract will be divided into domestic and social agreement and commercial transaction on the other hand. For the domestic and social agreement, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relation .


 $his is arose in ones v !adavatton.3 +laimant ofered a monthly allowance to her daughter i she would give up her %ob and train to be a barrister in (ngland. 6ater, claimant bought a house where daughter live and received rent rom other tenants. 6ater, when they quarrelled, her mother sought possession o the house. $he court held that, neither o the agreement was intended to create legal relations, they were merely amily arrangement. Hence, the mother was entitled to possession o the house. This is similar with Amy’s case, where Beryl, Charlie and David is considered as Amy’s family. The promise made by Amy can be say  that there are only family arrangement between them . Furthermore, they have no writing agreement between them. Thus, there have nothing to rebut the presumption that the  parties do not intend to create the legal relation. ince there have no intention to create legal relation between them, Amy therefore do not bound by her promise to give money to Beryl and David, and does not need to receive the reduce sum from = Available at http//www.lawteacher.net/ree0law0essays/contract0law/intention0 to0create0legal0relations.php accessed )3 April )2'3 3 ?ones v 5adavatton 8'[email protected]: ' 6 4)1 )

Charlie as a full settlement. !Beryl and her family also will not able to bring their case to the court as there is only family arrangement, the court had really no place to interfere.

 However, i consideration is consider, Amy may have bound by her promise. irstly, Amy ofer to give *avid C',222, with the condition that he obtains a second0 class degree. Is there any consideration between them!  $here are some rules o consideration that we have to comply with it, in order to ma#e the consideration to be valid. In the problem between Amy and *avid, we will concern in the "rst rule, consideration need not bene"t the promisor.  $hereore, consideration will e&ist too i promise

sufers some detriment at the promisor’s request. or e&ample, in  ones v !adavatton#, daughter’s giving up her %ob would be consideration or the

mother providing allowance, even this did not directly bene"t the mother. According to this there is no consideration between Amy and ,

David, because he su"er no loss from Amy’s promise, as David, who is e#ceptionally intelligent, does only little wor$, but manages to obtain a %rst class degree. Besides, this is a responsibility for David to get a good result as a student and as a son. Thus, Amy is not bound by her promise to pay the &',((( to David as Amy did not get any bene%t and David did not su"er any  loss from Amy’s promise.

@ +haterine (lliott 7 rances Duinn, +ontract 6aw E 6ongman 1 th edn, 6ondon )2''F > ?ones v 5adavatton 8'[email protected]: ' 6 4)1 4

Besides, we would li#e to #now that whether Amy is bound to pay Beryl C422 or all the errands she has run or her in the past. As stated above, in order to ma#e the consideration valid, there are some requirements. e would now discuss about the rule that is, consideration must not be past. +onsideration have to be given in return or the promise or act o

the other party. omething done, given or promised or another reason will not be valid consideration or promise. I one party has completed perormance beore the other ofered the consideration, this is unli#ely that the perormance which was done in return or that consideration. $his is demonstrated in $oscorla v Thomas .1 *eendant sold the claimant a horse. $he deendant told claimant that the animal was sound good and ree rom any vice, ater the sale have completed. Although this is ar rom the truth, the court held that, deendant’s promise was unenorceable. As it was made ater the sale, the consideration was past, or it had not been given in return or the promise. Thus, Amy was not bound by her  promise to Beryl as there is a past consideration, Beryl have completed her performance to become errands before Amy  promise to pay her the &)((. o her performance as an errands does not done in return for Amy’s consideration.

 Get, there are e&ceptions to the rule o the past consideration is no consideration. irstly,  where the past consideration was provided at the promisor%s re&uest, and it was understood that the payment would be made in return .9 $his can be traced bac# to 'ampleigh v

1 oscorla v. $homas, E'1=)F 4 DB )4= =

(rathwait.)* $he deendant had been convicted o #illing a man, and has

as#ed claimant to obtain a pardon or him rom the #ing. He later reused to pay claimant the money which he promised when claimant getting his pardon. $he court upheld claimant’s claim as claimant had obtain pardon at deendant’s own request, and this request carried with it the unspo#en understanding that the service would be paid or . *n Amy’s case, if Beryl’s performance was not re+uested by Amy, but she done it by voluntary, with the e#pected some payment for all this e"ort, then Amy would not be bound her promise and Beryl will not entitled to get the &)((.

Joreover, Amy also agrees that, although +harlie owes her C',222, she will accept C322 instead. +harlie pays Amy C322. However, there were special rules apply to contractual duties debt, that is, where someone owes another money and cannot pay the ull amount, they will sometimes ofer to pay a smaller sum on the condition that the creditor promises to accept this reduce sum as a ull amount or the debt. In essence, agrees not to sue the debtor or the ull amount. (ven i this agreement is made, it will only be bound i the debtor have provides some consideration or it by adding some e&tra element. $he leading case is !innel%s +ase)), where 5innel sued or +ole or the ull settlement, which

+ole on a bond. $he debt had be due on '' Kovember. +ole argue that 9 +haterine (lliott 7 rances Duinn, +ontract 6aw E 5earson 1th edn, 6ondon )2''F '2 6ampleigh v Braithwaite 8'@'3: (H+ <B ?'> '' 5innelLs +ase '@2) 3 ep, ''> +ourt o +ommon 5leas 3

that at 5innel’s request, he had pay the reduced sum on ' o Mctober, which 5innel had accepted in ull settlement o the debt. 5innel actually had won the case technically, but the court made it clear that it not been or that technicality, they would ound in avour o +ole, as he had made the payment earlier than her due date, this amounted to resh consideration or the promise to accept less than the ull amount. $he court held that, if the debtor have paid the debt earlier, or in a more convenient place, or give something else as well as the part payment. !rovided the creditor is receiving some bene"t and the debtor some detriment. This can be considered as a fresh consideration for the creditor%s new promise to accept part payment and not insist on getting the whole amount.


 $his rule have been approved in Foa-es v (eer)3. In this case, *r oa#es owed Jrs Beer C),222 ater she had obtained %udgment against him in an earlier case. *r oa#es ofered to pay C322 immediately and the rest by instalments, Jrs Beer agreed to this and agreed she would not see# enorcement o the payment provided he #ept up the instalments. Ko mention was made in this agreement o interest although %udgment debts generally incurred interest. *r oa#es paid all the instalments as agreed and Jrs Beer then brought an action or the interest. $he court upheld her claim by applying the rule in 5innel’s case that, payment o part o the debt did not in itsel constitute consideration or Jrs Beer’s promise to ') Available http//www.e0lawresources.co.u#/5innelN)>s0+ase.php  accessed )3 April )2'3 '4 oa#es v Beer E'11401=F 6 9 App +as @23 House o 6ords @

orgo the balance. $hrough this two cases, we can said that  Amy does not need to bound by her promise to receive a reduce sum from Charlie as a full settlement. he can claim for the full settlement from Charlie as Charlie gave nothing other than the &((. -e did not provide any e#tra element li$e pay the reduce sum earlier than the date in satisfaction, or pay the &(( in a more convenient place. As well as Charlie did not provide any bene%t to Amy or detriment to himself, there is no consideration have been concluded.

However, there is a principle that will prevent Amy rom claiming bac# the arrears o C322 rom +harlie which is #nown as the doctrine of promissory estoppel). $his are the way o ma#ing some #inds o

promises binding even where there is no consideration. hortly, a person may be said to be prevented or estopped rom going bac# on a promise, representation or assumption. In this sense Oestoppel is a mechanism or enorcing consistency and is about the very limited circumstances when changing one’s mind is legally unacceptable’ '3. $his was applied later by *enning ? E6ord *enningF in +entral 'ondon !roperty Trust 'td v /igh Trees /ouse 'td )0. +laimant had leased a bloc# to deendant, who

planned to rent out the individual Pats. ;nortunately, econd orld ar had %ust bro#en out and as a result it was slump in rent. +laimant '= 5romissory estoppel is a somewhat newer doctrine than waiver, and could be said to be a development o it. It is derived rom equity '3 Ibid '@ +entral 6ondon 5roperty $rust v High $rees House 8'9=>: <B '42 High +ourt >

thereore agreed that deendant could pay a reduce sum o the rent stipulated in the lease. By '9=3, the Pats were ull to let, claimant sought the ull ground rent or the last two quarter o '9=3 and stated that the agreement was ever intended to last until the war was over, or the Pats was ully let, which was the sooner. $he court accepted claimant’s argument, held that the ull rent was payable or the two quarters in question and rom the on. *enning ? interpreted the modi"cation as only intended to apply while world war time conditions prevailed and so upheld the receiver’s claim. '> However, i the balance o the rent during the war years had be claimed, the action would not have succeeded based on the equitable principle laid down in /ughes v 1etropolitan $ailway +o )2 which the courts held that, the landlords conduct was an implied promise to the tenants that he would not enorce the oreiture at the end o the notice period, and in not doing the repairs, the tenants had been relying on this promise. '9  According to this case, Amy will not able to claim bac$ the balance of the debt from Charlie if the promissory estoppel have been applied. The reason is Amy have promise Charlie that she '> oger Halson, +ontract law E 6ongman ) nd edn 6ondon )2'4F '1 Hughes v Jetropolitan ailway E'1>@0>>F 6 ) App +as =49 House o 6ords In this case, a landlord gave a tenant a si& month0notice to carry out repairs. $he lease will be oreited i he ail to do so. $he landlord and tenant then entered into negotiations or the tenant to purchase the reehold o the property. $he tenant had not carried out the repairs as they believed they would be purchasing the reehold and the repairs required by the landlord were not essential to his use o the property. At the last minute negotiations bro#e down and the 6andlord claimed that the lease was oreited as the tenant had not done the repairs. '9 Available http//www.e0lawresources.co.u#/Hughes0v0Jetropolitan0ailway.php accessed )3 April )2'3. 1

would not sue later for the full amount from him. Thus, even though Charlie did not provide any consideration to Amy, Amy still unable to claim bac$ the arrears of &(( as the promissory estoppel have avoid her to go bac$ to her promise.

However, although there is no need a legal contract in order to apply the promissory estoppel, there are some requirement or +harlie to ul"ll in order to apply it. Mne o it is  promissory estoppel often arise where promisee in reliance, in the sense, it must have inuence their conduct. In High $rees as stated above, the lessees continued to

rent out the Pats, rather than or e&ample, trying to sell their leasehold interest to someone else. Charlie will be able to apply the  promissory estoppel as he have pay the &(( to Amy after she have agreed to receive the &(( as the full settlement. -ence,  Amy will not be able to claim bac$ the &(( as she have to bound by her promise for not to sue for the arrears from Charlie.

Here comes another question that would it ma#e a diference i Beryl paid Amy the C322! $here is a regulations that, when a creditor who accepts the part payment from a third party other than the debtor, but in full settlement of the debtor%s liability, it was held that the creditor will not be able to sue for the outstanding amount later . $his can be proven in the /iranchand !unamchand v Temple.4* An army oQcer owed money to a moneylender, and his ather

sent a drat or a smaller amount, saying it was in ull settlement’ o the

)2Hirachand 5unamchand v $emple 8'9'': ) <B 442 +ourt o Appeal 9

debt. $he money lender have cashed the drat. However, he was then try to sue the son or the arrears. $he court have re%ected this claim, considering that by accepting the drat, the claimant had agreed to the terms on which it was ofered, and made an implied promise not to sue or the rest o the money. Although this promise was made to the ather rather than the son who have no provide consideration, the court stated that allowing the claimant to succeed would be a raud on the ather and thus an abuse o the process o the court. -ence, Amy will not able to claim the rest of the money which is owed by Charlie if Beryl are the one who pay the reduced sum of the debt to Amy as Beryl will  be consider as the third party. The consideration will be e#ist between Amy and Beryl although Charlie is the debtor.

As a conclusion, Amy will be able to withdraw her promise with Beryl and Beryl’s amily as their promise will be only consider as a amily arrangement. hile i consideration is consider, there may be a diferent result. irstly, Amy will not need to be bound by her promise to give C'222 to *avid as *avid did not sufer any detriment or loss upon Amy’s promise. Ke&t, Amy also does not bound by her promise to Beryl as what Beryl did is only a past consideration which does not gave in return or Amy’s promise to give her C422 . Amy will only bound to give Beryl C422 i  she have requested Beryl to do so and there is understood that the payment would be made in return. urthermore, +harlie will have to give bac# the arrears o the debt to Amy. $his is because he did not provide any e&tra element or pay the smaller sum in a more convenient place or earlier than the due date which is amount to resh consideration. He also '2

did not provide any bene"t to Amy. $his can be said that there is no consideration have been provide by +harlie in return or Amy’s promise not to claim bac# the ull amount o the debt. Although the promissory estoppel which stop someone rom going bac# to their promise may, made Amy bound by her promise even there is no consideration between them, but only i +harlie have ul"lled the element which required to apply promissory estoppel.

(ibliography Boo$s ''

(lliot, +atherine, and rances Duinn. +ontract 6aw. 1th ed. 8(sse&:

6ongman, )2''. 5rint. Halson, ogel. +ontract 6aw. )nd ed. 6ondon 6ongman, )2'4. 5rint.

ebsite •

Inbrie.co.u#,. L+onsideration In +ontract 6awL. K.p., )2'3. eb. )1 Apr. )2'3. http//www.inbrie.co.u#/contract0law/consideration0in0contract.htm

6awteacher.net,. LIntention $o +reate 6egal elations R 6aw $eacherL. K.p., )2'3. eb. )3 Apr. )2'3. http//www.lawteacher.net/ree0law0essays/contract0law/intention0to0 create0legal0relations.php

(0lawresources.co.u#,. LHughes S Jetropolitan ailwayL. K.p., )2'3. eb. )3 Apr. )2'3. http//www.e0lawresources.co.u#/Hughes0v0Jetropolitan0ailway.php

(0lawresources.co.u#,. L5innelLs +aseL. K.p., )2'3. eb. )3 Apr. )2'3. http//www.e0lawresources.co.u#/5innelN)>s0+ase.php

Table of cases 

*unlop 5neumatic $yre +o 6td v elridge 7 +o 6td 8'9'3: ;<H6 ', 8'9'3: A+ 1=> ')

    

hite v Bluett E'134F )4 6? (& [email protected]  ?ones v 5adavatton 8'[email protected]: ' 6 4)1 oscorla v. $homas, E'1=)F 4 DB )4= 6ampleigh v Braithwaite 8'@'3: (H+ <B ?'>

5innelLs +ase '@2) 3 ep, ''> +ourt o +ommon 5leas oa#es v Beer E'11401=F 6 9 App +as @23 House o 6ords Hirachand 5unamchand v $emple 8'9'': ) <B 442 +ourt o Appeal

+entral 6ondon 5roperty $rust v High $rees House 8'9=>: <B '42

High +ourt Hughes v Jetropolitan ailway E'1>@0>>F 6 ) App +as =49 House

o 6ords


Sponsor Documents


No recommend documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips


Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in