Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract
Consideration must be of value that can be objectively determined, but the courts have the consistently refuse to look at its adequacy. Further, the promise of service in the future is just as adequate a consideration of the service. So that, the promisee has to give something is return for the promise of promisor in order to convert a bare commitment made in his favors’ into a binding contract. There are two kind of consideration, that is executed consideration and executory consideration.
In the case of Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 119 ER 1471, QB the court said this promise was enforceable: the crew was so reduced that it was dangerous to sail on and the captain would have had no right to demand it. The original contract had come to an end, and the seaman were free to make a new contract on whatever terms might be agreed.
I agree with this argument because the court have enough evidence and can proof in charge the Captain. Although the Captain give out the offer is not include in the contract, and he promise willing to pay extra money for the other 19 workers, who works more than one person work. In the word the Captain say ‘if the 19 workers can save them and help to sail the ship send back to England,’ but when the ship is safety arrive England, the 19 workers ask for the Captain paid their the extra money. The Captain ignore and cheat them, what the Captain promise is gone back and bad faith. The Captain did not want to pay the extra money to them.
The workers sued the Captain, because the workers cheated by the Captain and the court say that the promise of Captain makes are enforceable. It is out of the contract. And there was a very dangerous ways, a very dangerous work for the 19 workers to do their work. Because there was half of the workers is run away from the ship. This argument may be take place, because the people who do wrong is the Captain. Some more he cannot simply give the promise out of the contract to them. Now the workers is already complete and done their work, but the Captain ignore them and say din have the promise anything. Thus, this argument must be take place. Even there is no contract for the extra paying but the court still will to take place.
Besides that, in the case of Stilk v Myrick 170 ER 1168, Kb is about the desertion of two seamen and great in findind replacements, the remaining members of a ship’s crew were promised extra wages if they would work the ship home. I disagree of this case because the two seamen run away already but 9 seamen still can cover another two seamen’s job although the captain promise the seamen if can bring them go back and safety reached London the seamen sought to enforce the pormise, but the court found against them.
They were entitled to their originally agreed at the start of th voyage. By staying at their work, they would not get any extra payment because they did no more than their existing duty and so hard given no new consideration for the new promise. Therefore, the complaint is not established if the seamen sued the Captain. In particular, 9 seamen still can handle 2 seamen’s job. If compare with Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 119 ER 1471, QB that is the different cases. This cases more than their existing duty thus had a new consideration for the promise.
Performance of an existing duty should not constitute consideration that is because an existing duty does not amount to have a new consideration to renegotiation contract binding. For example,
The general principle in the formation of a contract is an offer, acceptance and consideration. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as it is offeree to accept. In any particular case it is necessary to check what was written or said and if it is capable in law of amounting to an offer. Moreover, the offeree is the person to whom to make the offer.to the offeror is someone presents thing to another or the person who accept the offer. It can also be made to one person (bilateral) or to group of person or to the whole world at large (unilateral).
OFFER + ACCEPTANCE
An offer is made when the party makes it clear, by words or actions, that he is prepared to be bound as soon as the offer is accepted by the person to whom it is made. An offer is quite different from an invitation to treat, through it is not always east to recognize the different between two things or people.
By the way, a unilateral offer is a one sided promise to pay or reward some for performing an act. It is a one sided promise, offer to all because it is made without the offeror knowing who the offeree it. Besides that, a bilateral offer is different with unilateral offer, that is can take form of a promise to do something in return for the promise of the offeree to do something.
In the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) 1 QB 256, CA Medical preparations of the defendant's appeal carbolic smoke ball operators. The advertisement said the maker had deposited £1000 is in a named bank to show their frankness in this matter. After bought the smoke ball, they are willing to pay a person infected with influenza. The court said the person had accepted maker’s offer by buying the smoke ball and the instruction has been given. Therefore, the advertisement does not have made the mention of notification and had implied that all the customer need do was to buy and use the smoke ball.
Acceptance is the current contract. An acceptance have related to agreement and contract. Despite the fact that all agreement are not the contract but the contract are included agreement. Because the acceptance of an offer is the final and unqualified assent to the term of the offer. In particular is an acceptance oral or return must be communicated to the offeror before they can be a contract.
Intention to create legal relations
Contractual intention is normally going to be presumed in cases involving commercial agreement. In the case involving social and domestic situation that is a presumption that the party do not intend to have legal relation. For example, in the case of Meritt v Meritt (1970) 2 All ER 760, CA and case of Balfour v Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571, CA, these type of cases also about the agreement between the husband and wife. In general a promise unsupported by consideration is bounding contract and it is a contract be enforceable.
Remedies for breach of contract
The various forms of remedies available for breach of contract have a 5 type that is included rescission of contract, damages, specific performance, injunction and restitution.
Rescission of contract
Where a contract is set the side by one party on the ground that the very formation of the contract has been negatively affected misrepresentation ford, corrosion or undue influence.
Damages are prevented to complaint save the loss or injury party for any consequences of the breach of the contract. The section 74 of 1950 state the consequences of a breach of contract: …(1) when a contract has been broken, the party who suffered by the breach is entitled to receive from the party who had broken the contract a compensation for any loss or damage cause, which naturally in the usual cost of dealings from the breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Therefore, section 74 also have the above follows the common law rule laid down in the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854).
A remedy in the event of the breach of contract, specific performance is an equitable remedy whre the court direct that the contract be performed to it item. As it is an equitable remedy it is given as a desecration of the court and is not available as of right. If the no other remedy that is as money will adequately compensate the other parties.
An injunction is an order of the court where by an individual has required to refrain from the feather doing of the act complain of … in the context of the contract, the remedy will be granted to enforce a negative stipulation in a contract in a case where it would unjess to complied plaintiff to an action for damages.
A party who has entirely or in part perform his side of the contract and not receive the agree counter performance in full may sometimes be entitle to restitution in respect of his own performance. Where this consist of a payment of money the payor will simply seat to get it back; where it consist of some other benefit he claim recompense… in respect of it.