Contract 5/ Consideration 1. Alliance Bank v Broom (1864) D owed an unsecured debt to C. C asked for some security‚ and D promised to provide some goods but never produced them. When C tried to enforce the agreement for the security‚ D argued that C had not provided any consideration. HELD: that normally in such a case‚ the bank would promise not to enforce the debt‚ but this was not done here. By not suing‚ however‚ the bank had shown forbearance which was valid consideration for D’s promise
Premium Money Contract Payment
ECO-05 Bachelor’s Degree Programme (BDP) ASSIGNMENT 2012-13 Elective Course in Commerce ECO-05: MERCANTILE LAW For July 2012 and January 2013 admission cycle School of Management Studies Indira Gandhi National Open University Maidan Garhi‚ New Delhi-110 068 Elective Course in Commerce ECO-05: Mercantile Law ASSIGNMENT – 2012-13 Dear Students‚ As explained in the Programme Guide‚ you have to do one Tutor Marked Assignment in this Course. Assignment is given 30% weightage in the
Premium Contract Consideration Contract law
(Cresswell v Potter) as well as any infirmities such as age that affects the ability of the D to understand the nature of the contract‚ Fong Why Kong v Chan ah Tong. The requirement of a ‘sale at gross undervalue’ refers to any transaction where consideration is so inadequate as to give rise to a suspicion that the contract was not fairly made‚ Fong Whye Kong v Chan ah tong. The requirement that the D had received independent legal advice is strong evidence that he understands the nature of the contract
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
agreement made without consideration is void. “With reference to provisions of the Indian Contract Act‚ 1872 examine the validity of the statement and explain the cases in which the statement does not apply. (November 2005) Answer Validity of an Agreement without consideration: The general rule is that an agreement made without consideration is void (Section 25). In every valid contract consideration is very important. A contract may only be enforceable when an adequate consideration is there. However
Premium Contract Consideration
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
Premium Contract Consideration Contract law
Consideration is an essential element in the formation of a contract. Consideration may be a promise to carry out an action or a promise to refrain from carrying out an act that one is legally entitled to perform. Consideration may be defined in many ways‚ the following definition was obtained from Currie v Misa (1975) LR Exch 153. In this case‚ Lush J said: “A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right‚ interest‚ profit or benefit accruing to one party‚ or
Premium Contract law Contract Law
HCa919/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 919 OF 2010 ------------------------- BETWEEN FINE MASTER LIMITED Plaintiff (萬廣有限公司) and NIPPON CIRCUITS LIMITED Defendant (東陽電路板有限公司) ------------------------- Before : Deputy High Court Judge Woo in Court Dates of Hearing : 5‚ 6 and 7 March 2013 Date of Handing Down of Judgment: 12 March 2013 ----------------------- J U D G M
Premium 2009 Consideration Money
avoidance. Here‚ Browning gave Johnson a guarantee to pay $40‚000 in return for Johnson’s demonstration of surrendering the agreement of offer. Adequacy of consideration in one-sided contracts is talked about by Professor Williston in his treatise‚ Contracts § 102 (3d ed. 1957). There he demonstrates that the prerequisite of adequate consideration to bolster a guarantee is met by a hindrance brought about by the promisee (Johnson) or an advantage got by the promisor (Browning) at the solicitation of
Premium Contract Consideration
Malayan Law Journal Unreported/2010/Volume /Affin Bank Berhad v Precision Tube Product (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors - [2010] MLJU 119 - 9 February 2010 [2010] MLJU 119 Affin Bank Berhad v Precision Tube Product (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors HIGH COURT (JOHOR BAHRU) VERNON ONG LAM KIAT‚ JC GUAMAN NO (MT-1) 22-313-2005 9 February 2010 Sivapakiam Krishnan (H. M. J. Shaharom & K. S. Wee) for the plaintiff Ng Chew Hor (Ng. Fan & Associates) for the fourth defendant Vernon Ong Lam Kiat‚ JC GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Premium Contract Legal terms Bank
20 / 20 (100%) # Correct: True/False 7 7 Multiple Choice 3 3 Grade Details - All Questions Question 1. Question : Student Answer: As a general rule‚ if the action upon which you are relying as consideration is something you are already legally bound to do‚ it is not valid consideration. True Points Received: False 2 of 2 Comments: Question 2. Question : Student Answer: Pledges to charities are enforceable as a matter of public policy‚ even though they are really a gift. True Points
Premium Contract Consideration