Other
consideration tutorial work
- Module
- Contract Law (LAW4104)
- Institution
- Queen Mary, University Of London (QMUL)
detailed, descriptive tutorial work to help improve grades and save time for law students
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Content preview
1. Compare the decisions in Stilk v Myrick, Williams v Roffey Bros, North OceanShipping v Hyundai and Re Selectmove.
stilk v myrick = sailor was promised extra wages for remaining on boat, not
given this as he was merely doing his job>going beyond – case establishes
general rule
Williams v Roffey bros = r offered to give w extra money to ensure task was
completed on time, no economic duress
north ocean shipping v Hyundai = economic duress present – didn’t have
effect because too much time had passed [lapse of time]
letter of credit = services purpose that n will get money back in case h fails
to delivery tanker
was good consideration
re selectmove = s owed tax man money, agreed to pay tax as it fell due and
monthly £1k, court of appeal said not good consideration – owed taxes
anyways
all cases about existing duty to promisor
glidewell test – if all questions answer yes = then will be good consideration, if
no = no consideration
test used to determine whether performance of contract is good consideration
g = goods/service contract
r = reason to doubt performance
a = additional payment offered>pressured
b = benefit in practical, practical benefit
n = no duress
c = promise is capable to be consideration – something of economic value in
eyes of law
Mwb v rock = held there was good consideration, challenges foakes v beer,
practical benefit was retaining tenant [kept money going] – claiming even part
payments can be good consideration [somewhat like williams v Roffey], may
be a practical benefit in accepting less
2. “It is impossible to reconcile the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros with the
decision in Foakes v Beer claims cannot accept less, if you do so then able to
go to court and accept more . Later courts have now recognised this
difficulty and the authority of Williams v Roffey Bros is a doubtful one.”
Discuss.
distinguishes between contract for services and debt obligation
to explain Williams v Roffey [good consideration = was practical
W and R]
F v B = owe debt – no good benefit, want to ensure people pay
whole debt
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller gxorgiaa. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now