CONSIDERATION
This question aims to deliberates the importance of consideration in contracts, particularly in
cases including promises for future purposes. Consideration is also termed as the "badge of
enforceability," predominantly significant when a promise is made for future actions. In
instantaneous relations, for example general shop buying, consideration is hardly a practical
issue. Consideration is not attached with the gifts, charity or donation because they are not
showing the mutuality. When consideration is immediately provided in exchange of promises
then it is termed as executed consideration. However, for promises including future
performances such as the executory consideration, it's important to describe if the promise is
reinforced by consideration such as it must be informed that something is specified or
promised in exchange of the promise. Particularly, promises for future presents are normally
enforceable only when made in the form of an accomplishment that is mentioned in the Law
of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
Consideration also becomes an ordinary prerequisite for enforceability in English law.
Courts introduce this doctrine to resolve the challenges faced by the people who done their
work relying on other people and get nothing in return. This approach is established to ensure
the enforceability, fairness and equity in the contracts and prevents one-sided agreements
where only one party makes a promise or receives a benefit without giving anything in return.
It helps to distinguish between social promises and legally binding contracts and courts
generally do not enforce those promises made without consideration because there's no
indication of a bargained-for exchange. This principle reduced the inconsistency which
results in unsuccessful business because one party rely on another and made investments.
Consideration is valid in legal context when some form of rights, profit, interests or benefits
are enjoyed by one party and other party must provide with some detriment, patience, loss of
responsibility or there must be exchange of something beneficial between the two parties
[Currie v Misa (1875)]. This case describes the Benefit-detriment analysis in which one
party that may be the promisor gets benefit and one must (promisee) get detriment. This
concept specifies that when one party fulfills its promise of a contract, it's usually clear in his
behavior to recognize consideration. The action of one party can be seen as a detriment to
that party and a benefit to the other party creating the foundation for consideration. Though,
problems arise in contracts that are completely 'executory,' which means that they include an
exchange of promises, and neither party has yet accomplished. In such circumstances, finding
, consideration becomes more difficult since actions hasn't happened. Court held that a promise
not to enforce a invalid claim is not a good consideration for a promise given in return [Wade
v Simeon (1846)]
The separation of benefit and detriment in the situation of a legal contract is done where
one party agrees not to take legal action against another in exchange for a sum of money then
the promise not to take action is taken as good consideration for the return promise.
According to the Currie v Misa description, the consideration transferring from the party
forsaking the right to take any action must be either a benefit to the party getting the promise
or a detriment to the party making the promise. The rule of not to take legal action is not
considered a detriment to the party making it [Cook v Wright (1861)]; [Simantob v
Shavleyan (2019)]. If the party demanding the right to take action, then it doesn't sincerely
accept as true in the existence of that right, the promise not to take action is not a good
consideration for any counter promise [Wade v Simeon (1846)]. It discourages deceitful
attitude, stopping the parties from declaring a right to take action when they have knowledge
that such a right doesn't actually exist.
The House of Lords held that the consideration must move from the promisee, meaning
that the promise must confer some benefit on the promisor or entail some detriment to the
promisee, as Lord Dunedin clarified that even if a promise has not yet been performed, it can
still constitute consideration for the other party's promise [Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd
v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1915)]. Court held that in order for a promise to be enforceable, the
promisee must provide consideration which illustrates the fundamental requirement of
mutuality in contract law that there must be an exchange of value between the parties
involved [Tweddle v Atkinson].
Consideration must be "sufficient" but need not to be "adequate"
Consideration must be "sufficient" but need not to be "adequate" and these two terms may
appear interchangeable, but have different meanings. The requirement that consideration
must be 'sufficient' means that it must be something legally predictable by the courts as
capable of creating consideration. On the other hand, the requirement that it needs not be
'adequate' defines that the courts are normally not concerned about whether there is a perfect
match in value between what each party bargains. In simple words, there is no strict
obligation for balance in the values that are exchanged.
This question aims to deliberates the importance of consideration in contracts, particularly in
cases including promises for future purposes. Consideration is also termed as the "badge of
enforceability," predominantly significant when a promise is made for future actions. In
instantaneous relations, for example general shop buying, consideration is hardly a practical
issue. Consideration is not attached with the gifts, charity or donation because they are not
showing the mutuality. When consideration is immediately provided in exchange of promises
then it is termed as executed consideration. However, for promises including future
performances such as the executory consideration, it's important to describe if the promise is
reinforced by consideration such as it must be informed that something is specified or
promised in exchange of the promise. Particularly, promises for future presents are normally
enforceable only when made in the form of an accomplishment that is mentioned in the Law
of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
Consideration also becomes an ordinary prerequisite for enforceability in English law.
Courts introduce this doctrine to resolve the challenges faced by the people who done their
work relying on other people and get nothing in return. This approach is established to ensure
the enforceability, fairness and equity in the contracts and prevents one-sided agreements
where only one party makes a promise or receives a benefit without giving anything in return.
It helps to distinguish between social promises and legally binding contracts and courts
generally do not enforce those promises made without consideration because there's no
indication of a bargained-for exchange. This principle reduced the inconsistency which
results in unsuccessful business because one party rely on another and made investments.
Consideration is valid in legal context when some form of rights, profit, interests or benefits
are enjoyed by one party and other party must provide with some detriment, patience, loss of
responsibility or there must be exchange of something beneficial between the two parties
[Currie v Misa (1875)]. This case describes the Benefit-detriment analysis in which one
party that may be the promisor gets benefit and one must (promisee) get detriment. This
concept specifies that when one party fulfills its promise of a contract, it's usually clear in his
behavior to recognize consideration. The action of one party can be seen as a detriment to
that party and a benefit to the other party creating the foundation for consideration. Though,
problems arise in contracts that are completely 'executory,' which means that they include an
exchange of promises, and neither party has yet accomplished. In such circumstances, finding
, consideration becomes more difficult since actions hasn't happened. Court held that a promise
not to enforce a invalid claim is not a good consideration for a promise given in return [Wade
v Simeon (1846)]
The separation of benefit and detriment in the situation of a legal contract is done where
one party agrees not to take legal action against another in exchange for a sum of money then
the promise not to take action is taken as good consideration for the return promise.
According to the Currie v Misa description, the consideration transferring from the party
forsaking the right to take any action must be either a benefit to the party getting the promise
or a detriment to the party making the promise. The rule of not to take legal action is not
considered a detriment to the party making it [Cook v Wright (1861)]; [Simantob v
Shavleyan (2019)]. If the party demanding the right to take action, then it doesn't sincerely
accept as true in the existence of that right, the promise not to take action is not a good
consideration for any counter promise [Wade v Simeon (1846)]. It discourages deceitful
attitude, stopping the parties from declaring a right to take action when they have knowledge
that such a right doesn't actually exist.
The House of Lords held that the consideration must move from the promisee, meaning
that the promise must confer some benefit on the promisor or entail some detriment to the
promisee, as Lord Dunedin clarified that even if a promise has not yet been performed, it can
still constitute consideration for the other party's promise [Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd
v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1915)]. Court held that in order for a promise to be enforceable, the
promisee must provide consideration which illustrates the fundamental requirement of
mutuality in contract law that there must be an exchange of value between the parties
involved [Tweddle v Atkinson].
Consideration must be "sufficient" but need not to be "adequate"
Consideration must be "sufficient" but need not to be "adequate" and these two terms may
appear interchangeable, but have different meanings. The requirement that consideration
must be 'sufficient' means that it must be something legally predictable by the courts as
capable of creating consideration. On the other hand, the requirement that it needs not be
'adequate' defines that the courts are normally not concerned about whether there is a perfect
match in value between what each party bargains. In simple words, there is no strict
obligation for balance in the values that are exchanged.
