Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contract rules of law
Exceptions to General Rule
Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 states that an agreement without consideration is void. However, there are several exceptions to this rule under s. 26 (a) (b) & (c).
The first exception is an agreement made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other. Such agreements must be made in writing and must be registered under the law (if any) for the time being in force for the registration of such documents.
The illustration of s. 26 (a) provided in Contract Act 1950:
‘A, for natural love and affection, promises to give his son, B, $1,000. A puts his promise to B in writing and registers it under a law for the time being in force for the registration of such
…show more content…
26(a) of the Contracts Act 1950. Under s. 26(a) an agreement without consideration is void unless expressed in writing and registered under the law and also made for ‘natural love and affection’ by parties ‘standing in a near relation to each other’. P and D were biological brothers and thus clearly ‘standing in a near relation to each other’ The family arrangements had been reduced to writing and had been duly stamped and registered with the endorsement by the Stamp Office. As such the family arrangements fulfill all the requirements of s. 26(a) of the Act and were valid and enforceable.
It was also the considered opinion of the court that in the case of the natural parents and their children, a presumption of natural love and affection arises so that a valid consideration is constituted in law for the purposes of s 26(a).
The second exception is a promise to compensate for something done. It is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do. The necessary elements of this exception are the promisee has voluntarily done an act; the act is one that the promisor was legally compellable to do; and the promisor has agreed to compensate wholly or in part the promisee for the
…show more content…
26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 provides that where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim and the person liable or accountable therefore acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment.The acknowledgement shall be in writing and signed by the person making the acknowledgement - S. 27(1) of the Limitation Act 1953. If the debtor settles a part of his debt, then the limitation period would begin to run from the date of the last payment of his
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
Procedural History: Claim was filed against decedent 's (Jack Tallas) estate to recover on written agreement to make the claimant (Peter Dementas) an heir for the amount of $50,000. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County held in favor for the estate. Dementas challenged the initial verdict in Utah’s Court of Appeals, Orme, J.. In this appeal, the court held that agreement was not an enforceable contract in that it constituted a promise for past services performed gratuitously.
Answer: Judgment for Alfalfa. Alfalfa was in trouble when he was climbing and Darla rescued him from an almost certain serious injury or death. It was a legally sufficient value since Darla did not have to perform such an act, but she did. Afterwards, Alfalfa promised her a check of $1,000, which qualifies for a bargained-for exchange. However, this promise was made in the event when the action already took place. Therefore, there is a past consideration and does not need to be enforced.
A promissory estoppel is present if one party makes a promise to the other knowing that the other will rely on it. If the other party relies on it, there would be an injustice if the promise was not enforced. In the case of Sam and the chain store, unless the chain store had already paid him and/or spent money in anticipation of the arrival of the 1000 units, promissory estoppel would not be present since they did not rely on Sam’s promise. However, since the text reads that the chain store wrote a letter to Sam demanding that the 1000 units be sent, it implies that they had relied upon that
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
In Ex parte Threet, 160 Ham. 482, 333 H.2d 361, 364 (1960) the court held that there can be no secret common law marriage. They also stated that secrecy is inconsistent with the requirement of holding out the marriage publicly. Id. However, a distinction was made by In the Matter of Estate of Giessel, 734 H.2d. 27 (Ct. App. 1987). The court said that a marriage that was kept secret from relatives is acceptable if they relatives did not live within the same community as the couple. This was the distinction between In Ex parte Threet, 333 H.2d at 361 and In the Matter of Estate of Giessel, 734 H.2d. at 27, the couple from the first case lived in the same community as their relatives and kept their marriage a secret from mostly everyone. In the Matter of Estate of Giessel, 734 H.2d. at 27, their community knew them as a married couple and their relationship was not kept a secret. Windsor and Jackson’s neighbors and close friends within their neighborhood knew that they were married. While attending a parent teacher conference together, Jackson signed them in as Windsor and Jackson
For example, "A promises B that he would not enforce his legal rights and B acted and relied on it without giving any consideration, equity would not allow A to renege on his promise to B" (LawTeacher, n.d.).
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
In the 19th century, promissory estoppel was first introduced in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co , where Lord Cairns ruled that parties who have entered into fixed terms and then afterwards, by their own act or will, enter negotiations which influence the other party to assume that the stringent rights that were originally imposed will not be enforced or will be deferred, should be unable to reverse from this if it is inequitable for them to do so. This doctrine was resurrected by Lord Denning in Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd , where he expanded on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and ruled that where there is a promise intended to form legal relations and the promisor knew it would be acted upon and it was acted upon by the promisee then the promise made would be binding even with a lack of consideration.
...lled under our social system. X helped Y out of trouble in the past. Now Y owes a favor back to X. However, if Y denies to help X in the future, usage of the word "owe" cannot make Y help X. Again, the moral values of Y are coming into action. The moral values of Y are not forcing Y to help X. In this situation, even if X claims that Y "owe" the favor to X, it is not making a difference to Y. Again, looking at the case we see that X helped Y in the first place without owing any form of favor to Y. It was because X's moral values forced X helped to Y. Thus we see, that the word "owe" had nothing to do with whether X helps Y or not.
As mentioned earlier, there are certain requirements which must be met for a contract to be valid; requirements needed include agreement, consideration, contractual capacity and legality. For an agreement to be valid there must be an offer and acceptance present. In other words, there must be an intent known and understood for the contact to have an agreement. With that being said, there is no
The legal issue of constitution of trusts is very important, judicial decisions over the years on cases where trusts were not properly constituted indicates that constitution of trusts could be quite complex and must be very cautiously done by a property owner as a simple factor could make his trust void. An express trust is completely constituted either by effectively transferring property to trustees or by effectively declaring a trust. In case of personal property, the declaration of the trust may be put in writing; however, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. It is only when the trust is constituted that it is binding on the settlor. The long-standing idea that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift can be traced back to the 19th century cases of Ellison v Ellison and Milroy v Lord , and was further emphasized in the 20th century in the case of Re Fry .
Formalities – if formalities are prescribed for the formation of the contract , they must be observed.
The issue in this case is whether there is a legally binding contract between Roland and Bernie. The things that needs to be considered is whether there is an agreement between Roland and Bernie. If there is an offer and acceptance, then there is an existence of agreement. According to Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950, offer can be defines as when one person implies his/her willingness to another in order to acquire their consent. (Abdullah et al, 2011) The person who make the offer is known as ‘offeror’ or ‘promisor’. (Lee and Detta, 2009) An offer can be made in the method of orally, by conduct, writing or by the mixture of these forms. An offer must require an effective communication with offeree. The formation of contract when offeree accepted the proposal. (Dass, 2005)
In the given case of Hevvy and Traynor, nothing is mentioned about the state of mind of both the parties. So it is assumed from the scenario that both the parties have legal capacity to form a