Existing Contractual Duty
Assignment Topic
Traditionally, the performance of an existing contractual duty did not constitute valid consideration for a promise to pay extra money to the contractor. See for example, Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317. However, the decision in Williams v Roffrey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) [1991] 1QB1 impacts upon this traditional approach.
Explain and justify the traditional approach of the courts and extent to which that approach is varied by the decision in Williams v Roffrey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors), and the decision in the NSW Supreme Court in Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723.
NOTES FOR STUDENTS (GUIDELINES) • The assignment must be of 2,000 to 2,500 words in length. • The assignment must be typed or printed on a one side only of A4 paper with 1.5 or double spacing and leaving a left-hand margin wide enough for examiner’s comments and corrections. • The assignment must include footnotes* and a bibliography* (*see Appendix A: Australian Guide to Legal Citation) • Assignments will be marked out of a possible 25 marks.
Answer – DRAFT 1
The emergence of the doctrine of consideration is really somewhat due to the Statute of Frauds 1677 where it was stated that any transfer of property would actually need to be done so by a deed. However, if one has supported his promise with consideration, then he would be able to enforce such promise under the law.
How do we ascertain the existence of consideration? Various academics and judges had tried to give us a definition for the doctrine of consideration. However, there is only 2 person that really standout i.e. Lush LJ as well as Prof. Atiyah.
Lush LJ in Currie v Misa (1875): " A valuable consideration in the eyes of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the
Traditionally, the performance of an existing contractual duty did not constitute valid consideration for a promise to pay extra money to the contractor. See for example, Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317. However, the decision in Williams v Roffrey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) [1991] 1QB1 impacts upon this traditional approach.
Explain and justify the traditional approach of the courts and extent to which that approach is varied by the decision in Williams v Roffrey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors), and the decision in the NSW Supreme Court in Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723.
NOTES FOR STUDENTS (GUIDELINES) • The assignment must be of 2,000 to 2,500 words in length. • The assignment must be typed or printed on a one side only of A4 paper with 1.5 or double spacing and leaving a left-hand margin wide enough for examiner’s comments and corrections. • The assignment must include footnotes* and a bibliography* (*see Appendix A: Australian Guide to Legal Citation) • Assignments will be marked out of a possible 25 marks.
Answer – DRAFT 1
The emergence of the doctrine of consideration is really somewhat due to the Statute of Frauds 1677 where it was stated that any transfer of property would actually need to be done so by a deed. However, if one has supported his promise with consideration, then he would be able to enforce such promise under the law.
How do we ascertain the existence of consideration? Various academics and judges had tried to give us a definition for the doctrine of consideration. However, there is only 2 person that really standout i.e. Lush LJ as well as Prof. Atiyah.
Lush LJ in Currie v Misa (1875): " A valuable consideration in the eyes of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the