Consideration In Different Court Cases
Consideration is general a promise unsupported by consideration is not binding contract. Consideration was define by frederick pollock as " an at off for bearance of one perty or the promise there if is the prize for which the promose of the other is bought and the promise does given for volume in unforceable". Paying or promise to pay in return for the supplied a good an service consttute the most common. There are 3 principle that goven the application of consideration to contract that are,consideration must be suffucient but need not adequate, British law mention states that past consideration is not good consideration while lese Malaysia law state not past consideration is good consideration and the 3rd principle is consideration must be provided " given by offeree" but need not moved to the promisor. Following the next principle " an act, for breach of promise or were only amount to consideration if the law recorganizes that it as some economics value " however the courts do not in general ask whether addicuate value as been even or whether agreement is harsh of one sided. Were the act put forward by a party to a contract as consideration was perform before any promise of payment was made by the other party that act can be regarded as past consideration and is effect no consideration at all. This is the currently after the sale of the subject matter it is nearly gratuitous promise that cannot off. The third principle that consideration must move from promosy " it means that the party who wishes to enforce a contract must be able to show that himself as furniched consideration for the promise of other party. It is not however nessary it should had been to the benefit of other party so it did not move to be promisor. Although consideration is an assential for the information of the contract the doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel seen to allowed as possible exeception. The example of cases for consideration is Thomas v Thomas (1842) 114 ER 330, QB, Chappell v Nestle (1959) 2 AII ER 701, HL and Midland Bank v Green (1981)AC 513, HL.
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040, KB.
I agree for P because D is promise to P that D will pay and it's become promisor and D must follow the promise. P is cheated by D. I'm not agree because it is P's responsible to attend the court as a citizen and it is his duty and P cannot blame D and P is attend the court because of D is promise he will pay the money if he not promise P won't attend it,so he will refuse to attend if D is not promise. My judgement is P must pay the attending money by his own and there is no wrong on D. P must apologize to D to put the blame on D and D must follow the promise for the correct thing and also D must apologize to P for he lied to pay the money.
Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC  AC 270 HL.
I agree because police is doing theire duty to cover and the goverment is giving them money for thier work and forward manager must pay more as thiere payment? so its not manager's fault. i'm not agree because the manager is promisor and the police become promisy because they done thier work propely.Manager promise to police that he will pay the amount but suddenly he refused to pay the money to police so its become the manager's fault and he must pay them. My judgement for this case is whatever manager promise to police that he pay the amount for the works they done if he not pay also it is police's duty to cover it and they get wage from goverment and police is to protect and safe our country and they can't ask to pay the money from others who need theire help so there is no wrong on manager.
When i compare the case Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040, KB and Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC  AC 270 HL there is no different between the case of Collins v Godefroy and Glasbrook v Glamorgan in both cases they must do theire duty. But there is some different thats is consideration, in the case of Collins v Godefroy is not consideration that could support D's promise and in the case Glasbrook v Glamorgan have considerationof payment.
Stilk v Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168 KB.
I agree with the court's decision where the seamen should not expect for an extra pay when there is lack of workers in the ship. as we all know, those seamen are going to do the same amount of work and they would not have to put any extra energy in their job. so obviously, the worker will not be paid for nothing. in addition, lack of seamen is a problem that could occur often in sailing. the seamen should have get used with it. i am not agree with the court's decision,because the shipman have to be alert to this kind of problems and cannot expect the seamen to get used to it. the seamen have their own priority and they want it to be respected. Thus, an additional pay may avoid the worker from feeling disrespected by their shipman
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 119 ER 1471, QB.
I am agree with the court's decision, that once the seamen were done with thier job, they could have search for a new contract and they might earn extra money compare by extending the original contract. i am not agree with the court's statement, because there is no loss for the seamen where they will get extra money.there is no much different between extending thier current contract and making a new contract. so, it does not make much different that can affect either the captain or the seamen.
When i compare the case of Stilk v Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168 KB and Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 119 ER 1471, QB in this both case they are argue for the new contract.And the cosideration is in the case Stilk v Myrick there is no new cosideration for the new promise and the case Hartley v Ponsonby there is no cosideration.
Ward v Byham - promise to keep child happy.
I agree because there is no prove as they get married because they are still couple with child and father can leave his child and wife.Wife cannot blame her husband because it's her fault to let have a baby. I'm not agree because whatever he is not get marriage with his girl friend but he is father for that his child and can prove it by blood test, when they test his child's blood and father's blood we can get the prove that he is her husband so he also must take care his child. My judgement is he must give money to take care of his child and must get marriage with his girl friend.
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 114 ER 330,QB
I am agree because Thomas wana his wife to get one house to stay and it ismore easy for thomas more then pay the money for each year.I am not agree because, thomas's wife get house she will suffer for money for buying food so she become more poor and the consideration is enough to pay the money to thomas"s wife. Lastly my judgement is, Thomas must give her as money and he cannot change it as house whatever he past away his lawyer must change it as money.
When i compare the case Ward v Byham and Thomas v Thomasin this both also is argue for there husband in the case Ward v Byham is wife argue to husband did not give money to take care of there child and Thomas v Thomas is argue for the propety that wife need after her husband past away. And the different is Ward v Byham is married and Thomas v Thomas is unmarried couple. The cosideration is both case is same that was consideration enough to pay.
Consideration is one of the important thing in contract law and consideration also help to solve the problems of case.my opinion for those case that i done in this assignment i get to know whatever cheated by promiser we must do our duty and we can't balme the promiser. Those who are promise to do something for the person in those case must follow the promise and be a responsible person for them.By those case i get to know the judgement of cases.