Consideration Agreement English Law

The consideration for a contract must not be illegal. In Foster v Driscoll (1929), goods were smuggled into the United States, so the consideration was illegal. For example, if you enter into a contract for the supply of goods in return for the smuggling of counterfeit goods or drugs, the contract is unenforceable because the consideration is illegal. The reciprocity of the counterparty is fundamental to contract law. In general, conditional consideration is a valid consideration. A promise cannot be based on considerations that were said, made or made before the promise was kept. What is said after does not count in return. For example, if X promises to reward Y for an action that Y has already performed, the performance of that action is certainly a good consideration, because the promise to be rewarded is a past reflection and is therefore not a good consideration. Contracts cannot be maintained if the consideration granted by a party is unlawful. Similarly, if a party is already legally required to do something, this cannot be a new consideration either. Contract law states that “the counterparty must move away from the promise.” A promise is enforceable if it is supported by the counterparty, i.e.

if the counterparty has distanced itself from the promise. For example, in the case of Tweddle vs. Atkinson,[20] William Guy, John Tweddle promised that he would pay a sum of money to William Guy`s child, and William Guy John Tweddle also promised that he would pay a sum of money to John Tweddle`s child when both children were married. William Guy, however, did not pay John Tweddle`s son, who then sued his executors on the promised amount. It was established that the son could not keep the promise made to his father, because he had not really taken it into account – it was his father who had done it instead. The son has not received any compensation, so he cannot keep his promise. This particular rule of consideration forms the basis of the doctrine of the legal effect of a contract, i.e. only one contracting party may bring legal proceedings against the terms of this Treaty.

(Note that the premium doctrine was somewhat modified by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.) Therefore, the consideration of the promise was lenient in relation to the affirmation. While reflection should move away from the promise, it doesn`t necessarily have to move on to the promisor. The commitment may provide consideration to a third party if this was agreed at the time of conclusion of the contract. [11] There is a rule that “the consideration must move away from the promise,” which means that a person to whom a promise is made can only keep his promise if he has taken it into account. The court of Currie v Misa [1] stated that consideration was a “right, interest, benefit, advantage or indulgence, inconvenience, loss, liability”. . . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.