In the case of Foakes v. Beer (1884), Beer obtained a judgement against Foakes for a debt owed and costs in 1875. Over a year later the parties entered into an agreement to the effect that in consideration of Foakes paying Beer $500 in part contentment of the judgement debt and on condition that the balance will be paid by instalments, Beer would not continue on the judgement. In 1882 Beer took proceedings to carry out the judgement so as to recover interest on the judgement debt. It was accepted that the whole debt had now been paid off. The agreement could only be execute if there was consideration. The only present of consideration was the payment of $500 – which was the part of a larger debt already due. The payment of installments could not be consideration unless the payment of $500 was consideration. Part payment of a debt on or after the period of the debt is due is not good consideration for the creditors promise not to demand the balance. Based on Contract Act section 64 – Promisee may dispense with or remit performance of promise. Every promisee may dispense with wholly or in part, the performance of the promise is made to him. It may accept instead of it any satisfaction which he thinks fit. Illustrations (b) – A owes B RM5000. A paid RM2000 to B at the time period, B accepts in satisfaction of the whole debt which the RM5000 were payable. The whole debt is discharged. In the case Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh[1966] 1 MLJ 38, the appellant being judgment against the respondent for RM8,650. The respondent’s son offered to pay RM4, 000 as payment in completely to discharge his father from liability.The cheque was banked in and the money retained by the appellant’s solicitors. Later, the appellant is about bankruptcy, and... ... middle of paper ... ...ndy an annual rental of RM40, 000 of her dance school which Andy can rent as long as he like. Andy agreed. It is similar toKaruppan Chetty v Suah Thian, the court will held that the requirement of certainty was not met and based on section 30, the agreement become void. Two week before Nina leave for New York, the manager from Lily Ballet School has willing to rent Nina’s dance school for annual rental of Rm100, 000 for five years. Since the agreement between Nina and Andy is void, therefore Nina can enter an agreement with the manager from the Lily ballet school. Conclusion In conclusion, although it had valid offer and valid acceptance between Nina and Andy but the agreement is void due to uncertainty where lie under Contracts Act 1950 Section 30. So, the agreement between Nina and Andy is void; Nina can form an agreement with the manager from Lily ballet school.
a) Given that Eva and Maria entered a written contract supported by a legal document for a price agreed on $75,000 for rendering decorating services, there is consideration. Both parties agree upon a price and this contract verifies validity.
Knowingly and willfully acts, a required element of AKS, was not the basis of the initial of the contract
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
...cision? Why did the Court rule that way? The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 11th circuit for a closer consideration of the arbitral forum’s financial accessibility to the borrower. The agreement to arbitrate was not rendered unenforceable simply because the agreement said nothing about arbitration costs and thus allegedly failed to provide the borrower protection from potentially substantive costs of pursuing her federal statutory claims in the arbitral forum.
not morally be satisfied by this. More believed that when an oath is taken, one
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
that the only way they will marry is if she promises to obey his commands.
The making of a promise involves the voluntary giving of one's word that, if and when a particular circumstance or situation comes about, one will undertake to act in a manner defined by the terms of the promise one has given. The act of making the promise, in other words, implies a willingness to keep it. What is being agreed is that, on the basis of something said in the past, one's future actions will, insofar as the future is foreseeable, follow a particular course and no other. On the related, but rather different question of the motivation involved in keeping a promise, it may be that the promise-maker's acting or deciding in a particular way places him in a position identical to or in complete sympathy with the person to whom the promise has been made. Equally, it is, possible that events may turn out in such a way as to suggest that keeping the promise would be harmful to the interest of the person to whom it was made.
A finding of insolvency is imperative, as specific rights are empowered for the creditor to exercise against the insolvent individual or organization. For example, exceptional debts may be paid off by dissolving assets of the insolvent party. Prior to proceedings, it is common for the insolvent entity to meet with the creditor in order to attempt to arrange a substitutable payment method.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
The most authoritative definition of consideration stems from Currie v Misa in which the judgement of Lord Justice Lush defines consideration as “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.” Consideration is therefore, in essence, the price for which a promise is bought. Normally, a promise cannot be contractually binding unless it is supported by some form of consideration and there are numerous rules surrounding it’s successful operation. These include: consideration must move from the promisee, consideration must not be past and consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr v Reserve Bank Of India & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 228 (Supreme Court of India).
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
...e requirement of an advantage to creditors is complied with. Through strict formalities the court can ensure that based on the detailed evidence provided by the debtor, with regards to his assets, income, expenditure and detailed explanation as to why he or she is insolvent, the court can base its decision on more accurate evidence.
In English Law consideration is one of the three main areas of an enforceable contract. It may be defined as an act, forbearance or promise made by a single party that constitutes the price for which the promise of another, is bought. In simple terms, the basic understanding of consideration may be seen as a ‘give and take’ tactic between two parties.