Certainty and Completeness PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on certainty and completeness...

Description

Certainty)and)Completeness! ! ! Loftus!v!Roberts!(1902):!! This!agreement!was!not!a!binding!contract.!The!court!cannot!invent!a!contract.! !! Week!5:!! Blue!v!Ashley:!whether!as!a!result!of!a!conversation!a!contract!had!come!into!existence! The!curt!held!that!The!terms!were!not!certain.!There!was!no!time!specification.!offer!made!by!Mr.! Ashley!could!not!form!a!contract!as!there!was!no!reasonable!period!f!time.!These!terms!must!be! agreed!between!the!parties! !! Nicolene!v!Simmonds![1953]:!difference!between!uncertain!or!incomplete!terms!! Courtney!&!Fairburn!Ltd!v!Tolani!Bros![1975]:!the!law!des!not!recognise!a!contract!to!negotiated.! Because!it!is!too!uncertain!to!have!a!binding!force.!The!contract!is!incomplete!! !! Sudbrook!Trading!Estate!Ltd![1983]:!controversial!because!the!court!stepped!in.!the!price!here!was! to!be!fixed!by!vaulters!and!if!they!could!not!there!!will!be!an!umpire.!The!way!they!chose!to!do!it! was!not!essential!to!the!contract.!Should!the!court!interfere?!!It!is!not!for!the!curt!to!tell!them!how! much!things!are!worth!! !! Wells!v!Devani![2016]:!Wells!did!not!specify!the!term!in!which!he!was!to!be!paid!(where!the! commission!would!be!payable).!The!court!said!that!they!will!put!on!the!introduction!of!the!person! who!purchases!the!flat.!They!reversed!the!decision.!(the!judgement!will!be!released!soon)! !! !!

Consideration: Focuses!more!on!enforceability! !! Did!the!other!person!give!sth!of!a!value!in!the!eyes!of!law?!! You!get!sth!back!in!return!for!your!promise! Promise!made!without!anything!in!return!is!unenforceable.!! !! Benefit!or!detriment! !! We!can!classify!consideration!into!two!categories:!! 1. EXECUTORY!CONSIDERATION:!a!promise!in!return!for!a!promise!(bilateral!contracts)!! 2. EXECUTED!CONSIDERATION:!an!act!or!forbearance!for!a!promise!(unilateral!contracts)!

!! Different!elements!and!rules!of!consideration:! !! 1. Consideration!must!not!be!past:!A!promise!given!after!the!consideration!has!been! •

provided!is!NOT!enforceable.!! Eastwood!v!Kenyon:!!Eastwood!was!a!guardian.!The!P!borrowed!money!in!order!to!improve! her!state!and!educate!her.!The!D!and!her!husband!promised!to!give!his!money!back!after!he! had!educated!the!P.!! What!has!Eastwood!given!in!return!for!their!promise?!Did!he!borrow!the!money!and!educate! her!in!return!for!the!promise?!NO!the!promise!came!long!after.!He!did!that!in!the!past!and!

• •

•

consideration!must!not!be!past.!He!did!not!give!good!consideration!for!their!promises.! Therefore!they!did!not!have!to!pay!him.!! No!causal!connection!between!his!acts!and!her!promise.! The!promise!has!to!come!and!then!consideration.!If!consideration!comes!first!it!is! unenforceable.! !! !Re!McArdle:!a!woman!remained!in!the!family!home!after!his!husband!died.!The!children!knew! when!the!mother!died!they!would!inherit!the!house,!one!of!the!in!laws!started!decorating!the! house!(increasing!the!value!of!the!house)!and!made!improvements.!After!she!made!these! improvements!the!children!told!her!that!in!consideration!of!all!the!work!she!had!done,!when! the!mother!dies!we!will!give!you!the!money!you!have!spent.!The!mother!dies!and!the!children! deny!to!give!her!the!money.!! She!did!not!do!the!decorations!in!response!to!the!promise.!Therefore!it!was!held!that!she!was! not!entitled!to!the!payment.!!

!! !!

EXCEPTIONS!to!this!rule:!some!circumstances!where!in!the!face!of!them!look!like!past! consideration!but!the!court!has!found!that!there!are!actually!enforceable.!! !! Lampleigh!v!Braithwait![1615]:!the!D!was!found!guilty!of!murder.!The!D!asked!the!P!to!go!the!King! and!seek!a!pardon!for!him.!The!P!did!this!and!got!it.!After!the!P!was!successful!the!D!promised!to!pay! 100!pounds!but!then!he!later!to!refused!to!pay!the!money.!On!the!face!of!it!if!we!apply!the!general! rule!there!was!no!consideration.!! The!distinguishing!factor!in!this!case!is!that!the!guy!in!this!case!ASKED!the!person!to!go!to!the!king.! This!distinguishing!factor!separates!the!cases.!! A!voluntary!act!done!before!a!promise!will!not!be!good!consideration.!In!Re!McArdle!she! VOLUNTARILY!did!up!the!house!BUT!if!the!act!is!done!at!the!request!of!the!other!party!it!can!be! consideration!such!as!it!is!in!this!case.! !! Re!Casey’s!Patent![1892]! !! Pao!On!v!Lau!Yui!Long![1980]:!there!was!a!dispute!over!an!agreement!to!buy!back!some!shares.!Lord! Scarman!set!out!the!requirements!for!when!an!action!completed!before!the!promise!can!be! recognised!as!good!consideration:!! • The!service!must!have!been!rendered!at!the!promisor’s!request! • The!parties!must!have!understood!that!the!act!would!be!paid!for,!or!that!the!other!party! would!derive!some!benefit! • Payment!would!be!legally!enforceable!had!the!promise!been!made!before!the!act! !! 2. Consideration!must!move!from!the!promisee:!!

3.

-!Tweddle!v!Atkinson:!two!dads!made!an!agreement!between!themselves!to!pay!an!allowance! to!their!children!who!were!marrying!each!other.!The!brides!father!died!before!any!payment! had!been!made.!The!son!of!Tweddle!sued!to!enforce!the!promise!to!pay!them.!The!issue!was! Whether!the!son!had!given!any!consideration!for!his!father!in!law's!promise!to!pay!the! allowance.!He!had!not.!The!promises!were!exchanged!between!the!two!fathers!and!each! promise!was!consideration!for!promise!of!the!other.!! !“no!stranger!to!the!consideration!can!take!advantage!of!the!contract![even!though]!the! contract!is!made!for!his!benefit”!per!Wightman,!J.!! !! (a)!Adequacy!of!consideration:!they!will!not!look!at!the!actual!value!of!the! consideration!but!they!are!considered!with!whether!the!consideration!is!sufficient!in!law!

!! •

Thomas!v!Thomas![1842]:!before!Thomas'!death!he!had!stated!that!he!would!like!his!wife!to! continue!living!in!their!house.!When!he!died!the!executors!agreed!with!the!wife!that!if!the! wife!paid!1!pound!per!year!and!keep!the!house!in!good!repair!she!could!stay!in!the!house.! They!later!wished!to!remove!the!wife!from!the!house!saying!that!1!pound!per!year!was! inadequate!and!therefore!the!promise!is!unenforceable.!The!court!held!that!either!the! promise!of!paying!1!pound!per!year!or!keeping!the!house!in!good!repair!were!good! consideration!for!their!promise!to!let!her!stay!in!the!house.!The!courts!do!not!want!to! interfere!in!the!bargain!!

•

Chappell!v!Nestle:!Chappell!owned!the!copyright!in!the!recordings.!Nestlé!offered!to!sell!these! records!at!a!discount!price!to!anyone!presenting!three!wrappers!from!their!chocolate!bars.! The!wrappers!themselves!were!worthless!and!were!thrown!away!by!Nestle.!Consequently,!the! issue!was!whether!the!wrappers!were!consideration!for!the!sale!of!records!or!whether!they! were!merely!a!qualification!for!buying!the!records. Could!the!wrappers!be!considered!good! consideration!for!the!promise!to!sell!the!record?!Were!they!sth!of!value?!Nestle!argued! wrappers!had!no!value!in!the!eye!of!the!law.!However,!The House of Lords held that the

!!

wrappers did form part of the consideration for the sale of records despite the fact that they had no intrinsic economic value in themselves. ! !! !!

b)!Sufficiency!of!consideration:!! White!v!Bluett!–!to!stop!moaning?! The!father!said!that!if!he!stops!moaning!hell!let!him!off!the!money!he!owes!him.!The!son!did!stop! moaning.!When!the!father!died!the!executors!they!found!the!I!owe!you!notes!written!by!the!son!and! claimed!the!money!back.!! The!stopping!of!the!moaning!the!court!said!was!not!sth!that!the!law!recognised!as!being!sufficient! value!and!could!not!be!consideration!primarily!because!the!boy!had!no!right!to!be!moaning!in!the! first!place!so!the!giving!up!of!it!was!no!detriment!or!suffering!to!him!! !! • Hamer!v!Sidway!–!(American!case),!In!contrast!with!the!above!case.!In!this!case!the!court!held! that!giving!up!smoking,!gambling!etc.!by!the!nephew!was!good!consideration!of!the!uncle's! promise!as!the!nephew!was!over!the!age!of!21!and!had!the!legal!right!to!smoke,!drink,!gamble! etc.!and!he!had!suffer!a!detriment!in!reliance!of!the!promise.!! !! • Ward!v!Byham![1956]–!a!dad!promised!to!pay!the!mother!of!his!child!1!pound!per!week!if!she! kept!the!child!‘well!looked!after!and!happy’?! By!promising!to!ensure!the!child!was!well!looked!after!and!happy!she!had!gone!beyond!her!existing! legal!duty!and!therefore!had!provided!consideration.!She!was!entitled!to!the!payment.! !! 4. Forbearance!to!sue:!can!giving!up!your!right!to!sue!someone!be!good!consideration?!! • Horton!v!Horton:!the!couple!had!a!separation!agreement!and!the!husband!was!not!sticking!to! it.!The!wife!agreed!not!to!take!him!to!court!or!sue!him,!if!he!would!give!her!30!pounds!per! week!that!they!originally!agreed!.!Her!forbearance!in!not!suing!him!was!good!consideration!for! his!promise!to!pay!30!pounds!per!week.!! !! • Alliance!Bank!Ltd!v!Broom:!The defendant owed an unsecured debt to the plaintiffs. When •

the plaintiffs asked for some security, the defendant promised to provide some goods but never produced them. When the plaintiffs tried to enforce the agreement for the security, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs had not provided any consideration.!

It was 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 and this was valid consideration, so the agreement to provide security was binding. !! !! !! 5.

Performance!of!a!legal!duty:!whether!the!performance!of!a!legal!duty!could!be!

consideration!for!paying!them?! !! Collins!v!Godefroy:!Held:!

The court held that the agreement that the plaintiff’s should attend court was not supported by consideration. This was because the plaintiff was under a public duty to attend court anyway having been subpoenaed. The law would not allow someone to recover expenses incurred in the performance of a duty that they were merely obliged to do anyway by law. The performance of a legal duty is not good consideration per se. But if you can show that you have gone above and beyond what the legal duty requires of you then that action of over and above may be good consideration. !! Glasbrook!Bros!v!Glamorgan!CC:!! The!employees!of!a!coal!mine!in!Wales!were!on!strike! The!owners!of!the!mine!sought!the!assistance!of!the!police!in!getting!some!of!the!man!into!work.! The!police!came!and!assisted!the!situation!and!the!police!concluded!that!mobile!officers!would!meet! the!occasion!HOWEVER!the!owners!wanted!an!on!spot!coverage!and!offered!to!pay!the!police!for! this.!The!police!went!there!and!did!what!they!were!asked!to!do.!BUT!the!mine!owners!refused!to!pay! the!police!arguing!that!in!providing!this!on!spot!policing,!they!were!not!doing!more!than!their!legal! duty!to!keep!the!peace!(that’s!their!job)!! Held:!the!police!were!entitled!to!the!payment.!In!providing!the!on!the!spot!policing!as!opposed!to! what!they!had!assessed!in!doing!that!they!were!going!over!and!above!what!the!law!requires!them!to! do.!! !! Harris!v!Sheffield!Utd!FC:!The!court!was!asked!whether!services!provided!by!the!police!at!Sheffield! United!Football!Club!for!the!club’s!home!fixtures!were!‘special!police!services’!so!that,!if!they!were! provided!at!the!club’s!request,!the!police!could!charge!for!them.!The!club!argued!that!they!were!not! and!that!the!police!were!doing!no!more!than!carrying!out!their!duty.!Further,!the!club!denied!that! over!a!short!period!at!the!end!of!1983!they!had!‘requested’!police!services!for!the!purposes!of!the! section!and!counterclaimed!a!declaration!that!they!were!not!liable!to!make!any!payment!for!police! services!unless!they!requested!attendance!by!officers!to!fulfil!roles!other!than!police!duty.!! Held:!what!the!police!were!doing!was!over!and!above!their!legal!duty.!In!going!to!the!ground!and! providing!certain!numbers!of!police!men!they!were!going!above!their!legal!duty!and!so!the!promise! to!pay!them!was!enforceable.!! There!was!an!argument!to!say!that!the!police!does!not!have!a!duty!to!be!in!a!private!football! ground,!meaning!they!went!beyond!and!above!their!legal!duty.!! !! Leeds!Utd!FC!v!CC!West!Yorkshire:!! Issue:!whether!the!provision!of!policing!services!requested!by!the!football!club!was!over!and!above! what!was!needed!to!be!done!in!order!to!preserve!law!and!order?! The!police!were!not!entitled!to!recoup!from!a!football!club the!costs!of!policing!and!crowd!control! carried!out!on!land!which!was!in!the!immediate!vicinity!of!the!club!but!was!not!owned,!leased!or! directly!controlled!by!it.!This!came!within!the!police's!duty!to!maintain!law!and!order!and!to!protect! life!and!property!in!a!public!place.!No!additional!consideration!just!their!legal!duty.!!

!! 6. Performance!of!CONTRACTUAL!duty!owed!to!a!THIRD!party! !! Shadwell!v!Shadwell:!the!uncle!said!he!will!pay!an!allowance!of!150!pounds!per!year!to!his!nephew! until!his!income!exceeded!600!pounds.!The!payments!were!made!by!the!uncle!initially!but!then!he! died!and!the!payments!stopped.!When!the!nephew!sued!the!state!for!the!payments,!the!state!said! this!was!not!an!enforceable!agreement!between!the!uncle!and!nephew!as!the!nephew!did!not!give! any!consideration!for!his!uncle's!promise!to!pay!him.!HOWEVER,!in!1860!a!promise!to!marry!a! person!was!a!legally!enforceable!contract.!The!nephew!said!that!his!going!through!with!the!wedding! was!his!consideration!for!the!uncles!promise.!The!uncle!has!made!the!promise!to!the!nephew!but! the!nephew!is!contractually!obliged!to!his!fiancé.!Can!the!performance!of!a!contractual!duty!owed!to! a!third!party!be!good!consideration!for!the!uncle's!promise!to!make!him!the!allowance?!YES! REMEMBER!this!from!the!second!point!related!to!consideration!in!PowerPoints!that!consideration! must!move!from!the!promisee!but!it!does!not!have!to!move!to!the!promisor.!! !! .! New!Zealand!Shipping!Ltd:! Can!the!performance!of!the!contractual!obligation!between!Stevedore!and!cargo!carrier!be!good! consideration!for!the!contract!(promise!to!limit!liability)!between!the!cargo!carrier!and!the!cargo! owner?!YES!! !! 7. Performance!of!CONTRACTUAL!duty!owed!to!PROMISOR! Can!the!performance!of!something!you!were!already!contractually!bound!to!do!be!good! consideration!for!a!second!promise?!! No!consideration!given!for!the!second!promise! Two!views:!! • Traditional!view:!the!performance!of!an!existing!contractual!duty!with!the!promisor!could!not! amount!to!good!consideration!e.g.!Stilk!v!Myrick:!on!a!sea!voyage!2!sailors!desert!the!ship! leaving!the!crew!short!handed.!The!captain!promised!to!the!remaining!group!that!if!they! managed!to!sail!the!ship!home!safely,!he!would!pay!them!more.!When!the!sailors!did!so!the! captain!refused!to!give!them!the!extra!money.!They!sued!him!but!they!lost.!They!had!not! given!anything!in!return!for!the!captain's!promise.!They!had!merely!performed!an!obligation! that!they!were!already!in!a!contract!to!perform.!! • This!decision!was!based!on!public!policy.!! • At!this!time!the!doctrine!of!economic!duress!did!not!exist.!This!doctrine!states!that!If!you! agree!to!do!sth!but!you!have!agreed!to!it!because!your!financial!interests!are!being!threatened! you!will!not!be!bound!to!it!because!you!did!not!enter!it!willingly.!At!the!time!of!this!case!not! such!doctrine!existed.!Maybe!we!don’t!need!the!same!rule!now!because!the!reasons!for!that! rule!are!no!longer!relevant!as!we!have!this!doctrine!now!to!meet!the!problems!that!Stilk!tries! to!address.!! !! Hartley!v!Ponsonby:!the!sailors!in!this!case!have!done!more!than!what!their!original!contract!wanted! them!to!do.!In!this!case!half!of!the!crew!were!down,!much!more!than!the!above!case.!! !! North!Ocean!Shipping:!ship!owners!wanted!a!tanker!and!contracted!with!Hyundai!to!build!them!one! and!also!the!price!was!to!be!paid!in!5!instalments.!But!there!is!a!letter!of!credit!opened!between!the! two.!This!letter!provided!security!to!the!ship!owners.!After!the!1st!instalment!was!paid!the!US!dollar! fall!in!value!and!so!the!builders!asked!for!an!extra!10%!on!the!remaining!instalments.!The! defendants!said!if!they!don’t!pay!it!the!tanker!wont!be!delivered.!They!agreed!to!pay!the!extra! money.!The!letter!of!credit!was!extended!to!cover!the!additional!amounts!of!money.!The!owners!

then!paid!the!extra!money!and!the!ship!was!finished.!8!months!later,!the!owners!brought!an!action! to!claim!the!extra!10%!that!they!paid.!! • Had!the!ship!builders!given!any!consideration!for!the!ship!owners!promise!to!pay!them!the! extra!10%!given!that!the!builders!where!already!in!a!contract!to!build!the!ship?!Consideration! could!be!found.!The!agreement!by!the!builder!to!extend!the!credit!by!an!additional!10%!(as! this!was!not!sth!they!had!to!do!and!it!is!not!normal!in!contract!of!these!type),!mentioning!to! the!fact!that!they!were!willing!to!extend!it!by!10%!was!good!consideration!for!the!promise!to! pay!extra.!! !! !! Williams!v!Roffey:!! Absence!of!economic!duress! !! !! !!

8. (a) Part payment of a debt - common law! • • • • •

Pinnell’s!Case! Foakes!v!Beer! D&C!Builders!v!Rees! Re!Selectmove! *MWB!Business!Exchange!v!Rock!

!!

8. (b) Part payment of debt – equity! PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL • Central London Property v High Trees! Does not deal adequately with the precedent of Foaks v Beer ESTOPPEL and WAIVER • Hughes v Metropolitan Railway!

How has promissory estoppel developed? Woodhouse A.C.: contract for the sale of goods

!...