Principle of consideration Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Principle of regard - clause ExampleBut why it is too simplistic to assume if there is esteem present a promise is enforceable by examining different facets of consideration within the above context.Sir Frederick Pollock defined consideration as An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the cost for which the promise of the different is bought, and the promise thus given for pry is enforceable.1 This definition was ripely adopted by overlord Dunedin in Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd (1915) 2 Dunlop had sold tyres to Dew Ltd on condition that their (latters) agents should non sell below the listed price of Dunlop. But Selfridge Ltd who had purchased tyres from Dew Ltd sold below the listed price. In this case of suing of Selfridge by Dunlop clear-cut by House Lords in appeal, it was held that privity of contract was essential. And what determined privity in this case was consideration. As there was no consideration moved amidst the said parties, there was no con tract between them and therefore Selfridge was not liable to DunlopEven preferably to Dunlop case, principle of consideration was established in Currie v Misa (1875)3 wherein Misa issued cheque to Lizardi or bearer. As the cheque was dishonoured, the bearer Currie brought action on Lisa. It was held the bearer Currie even as a holder for value is not entitle to sue Misa as there was no consideration between them.The following are the rules of consideration.a) setting must be present in a promise and must have moved from the the promisee. In tweedle v Atkinson (1861)4, it was held that the person entitled to sue is he who gives consideration. It follows also that gift is not a contract.b) Consideration must have some value. Hence natural love and affection or performance of a moral duty will not be used to enforce a promise. This was decided in White v Bluett(1853)5 wherein it was held that a sons promise not to complain to his father as to how his properties are distributed amo ng his children in return for the fathers promise not sue his son for the debts owed to him, can not be good consideration. appraise Pollock held that the son had not provided good consideration as he had no legal right to complain. Thus, in promising not to complain, the son did not forbear or give up anything of value in exchange for his fathers promise. (Barbara Lisa)6c) Consideration need not be adequate. In Chappel and Co v Nestle7, it was decided that consideration of 1s 6 d with three wrappers of chocolates Nestle had offered was a sufficient consideration for the gramophone records offered in return. d) Consideration may be executory or executed but past consideration can not enforce a promise. A consideration already provided before promise was made is past consideration