Currie V Misa Case Study

Introduction
There is no section or legal principle can state the definition for consideration in a contractual element clearly before the case of Currie v Misa in 1875. The case of Currie v Misa (1875) All ER 686has play an important role in consideration. In the year of 1875, there was a company named Lizardi & Co sold four bills of exchanges to Misa. However, Lizardi & Co. was a debtor to a bank firm which owned by Mr. Currie and the company was being pressed for the payment. Then, Misa knew that Lizardi & Co. has stopped payments for the debts and have a lot of outstanding debt, he stopped his bankers not to issue the cheque to the Lizardi & Co. Therefore, the question arise in the case was whether the sales of the company which has an
This has made an account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other. There was a case illustrate the point above. In the case of Re Tan Soh Sim, decreased; Chan Lam Keong & Ors v Tan Saw Keow(1951), the fact was started when Tan Soh Sim was on her death bed and too ill to make a wish then her family decided to sign a document which Khoo and Tan giving up on Tan Soh Sim’ s properties in favor of the four adopted children and Tan Boey Kee because Tan Boey Kee told them that was the intention of Tan Soh Sim. However, the court held that the validity of an agreement is depend on natural love and affection between near relations, relationship and nearness depended on the mores of the group to which the parties belong to and the circumstances of the family which is stated in Section 26 (a) of Contract Act 1950. On the facts of the case, the court found that a Chinese adopted son is related to the family of his adoptive father but a son which is adopt or natural is not nearly related to his adoptive mother. In the end, the court held that the claims of Tan Boey Kee and the four adopted children was not valid because the consideration was not expressed in writing and there was no natural love and affection between
For an example, A promise to B that if B have found his son, B will get a reward as RM500 from A. The following case illustrated the point above. In the case of JM Wotherspoon & Co Ltd v Henry Agency House (1962) which the plaintiff was a company from England and the defendant was a firm from Malaysia for the purpose to claim of loss because of non-received of payment from the Malaysia buyers. Therefore, the fact of the case was the defendant in Kuala Lumpur was the agent del credere of the plaintiff company in London. If not, then was the agreement that entered by them without consideration considered as a contract under the Contract Act of 1950. Then the court found out that there is a promise made by the defendant to plaintiff to pay the losses but there was not supported by a consideration which is important for a formation of a contract. However, there was an issue raised up in the case which was whether the plaintiff supply the good was done voluntarily. According to Section26 (b) of Contract Act 1950 has stated clearly which an agreement made without consideration can becomes contract if there was a promise to compensate as whole or in part, a person who voluntarily to done something for the promisor. Therefore, the promise of defendant and