Question 1
A critical discussion of The Doctrine of Consideration: Controversy and slander with the intention to produce legal relations.
Introduction
The explanatory form of ‘Doctrine of Consideration’ is still unclear, and the courts are inconsistent with their application. The Doctrine is several times vilified and plagued with controversy as there are familial and social considerations involved with the ethics of morality in questions. The English Courts have overruled the DoctrineDoctrine, and there is a current technical requirement that is considered so that these can be urged by the defence. The DoctrineDoctrine is consciously modified as the courts are hesitant to use it as these doctrines are hazy in their comprehensiveness. In the circumstance of equitable estoppels, the defendant was able to preclude this DoctrineDoctrine but there was an essential element lacking for considering the case as a valid contract. There are several changes of a position of Consideration as the courts are unable to find out the distinction between real and apparent intentions of the party against whom the DoctrineDoctrine was used. These were barriers to the use of the DoctrineDoctrine of Consideration. In hindsight, these equitable estoppels could abolish the DoctrineDoctrine of Consideration. But the introduction of the law was enforced under Roman-law. The change of desirability can be bought by the legislative. The decision, in simple words should be an unwarrantable usurpation of legislative power held by the Court. A good conscience is required for confiscation. There are doubtful propositions that are considered as this is the involvement of the exchange of offered promises.
With the defamation and contradictions, the DoctrineDoctrine of Consideration is redefined as a “test of the bargain” that promisee in exchange for the thing has promised and this has been expressed. Under this condition, unilateral contracts are possible. There is one case from the 16th century. At that time English law defines that Doctrine of Consideration should be executed only when the agreement will consist of “quid pro quo” and the contract will not be taken into Consideration until all the objection is fully furnished. This mainly shows how different legal relations are to be created by the parties to consider the Doctrine of Consideration to enforce an agreement.
Consideration is to be furnished to the promiser by the promisee in exchange for what the promisee promises. The authoritative sources have to go for careful examination to understand the origin of DoctrineDoctrine and how the considerations are to be furnished. This statement implies that Consideration is not the critical point of a contract, and this becomes incorrect in bilateral agreements. The bilateral agreements rather speak of other performances of promise rather than the thing that is contemplated in commitment. The well-settlement of deals arises in bilateral relations when counter assurance is given.
Here the counter promise is not the Doctrine of Consideration, but the performance of a security is quintessential before and furnished Consideration. So in a bilateral agreement, the contract can be without Consideration. Here neither of the parties can withdraw as the demanded Consideration is based on the performance of the promise. So the counter security surmounts to no acceptance, and there is no difference in the result of unilateral and bilateral agreements in the legal relationships.
Figure 1: Typology to understand the vilification and contradiction in the Doctrine of Consideration
(Source: Self-created)
Analysis
Verification of legal relations from the parties: Legal concerns and intentions of the parties differ. The existence of acceptance of the Doctrine of Consideration is delayed until the performance of the promise is reached. The counter deposit is considered as an obligation in bilateral agreements, and it is justified to produce Consideration of counter commitment as obligation depends on that contemplation of counter promise. The basis of the deal is essential to consider. The requested Consideration may play fair, but the security of the condition of guarantee is precedent in nature. Dean Ballantine continues his agreement to analyze what are the consequences of counter promise in a bilateral agreement. The rationalization of the DoctrineDoctrine takes into Consideration to provide a touchstone. It might instead consider substantive transactional qualities.
- It tests whether engagement of both the parties is based on the bargain or is the basis of bargain based on the real gratuity of contracts.
- Suppose the bargain is based on the subjective matter that has been given in exchange sufficient possibility to value the foundation of legislation claim. This verifies where the request is adequate or not.
Overall it is observed that Consideration is based on the contemplation of bargain and that leads to a natural conclusion that inquiry has to be made with the plausibility of reasonableness with the exchange of the promise that is caused by either of the parties. The cases often tend to grow out of the decision as the promises are not upheld, and these were seen in Pinnel’s case. The reasonableness of the decision was not able to sustain the proposed bargain.
Schnell versus Nell’s Case: Reasonableness of the decision: In Schnell versus Nell’s case, the Court had to keep a similar concept of Pinnel’s case in mind. In case it was seen that one cent was a family’s extrinsic piece or (it was an ancient remarkable coin that was inexpensive and valued more than the money at that time). In this case, the opinion given the Court was different and Consideration was provided showing that there was no intention of business arrangement rather the transaction is meant for gratuitous condition. Hence, the Consideration met the technicality issues with a simple contract that came under mutual assent and Consideration. It showed that there was a lack of contract and obligation could arise. So in these kinds of cases, the county provided a universally recognized compromise case that could furnish certain proof. The contract should always be contemplated on business relationship with furnishing of proof otherwise this is not considered in the English law. Contracts will arise, when the Consideration is furnished with the legal obligation. The promise will not be considered until the contract is shown with the agreement from the parties. Bilateral agreement is acted upon when the parties consider legal counter promises. The intentions are examined in all the cases.
Analogy of the case to determine Doctrine of Consideration: Suppose there are two promises that are observed in a case. The first promise is to pay certain money at a particular time and the second promise is to complete a task in a given time. The money rendered will be in good condition if the party pays the consequent amount and the other party will perform the act. But if the party does not pay the amount in time and breaks his contract then there will be no performance of promise of the first task and proposed hypotheses of the second task will be considered without the DoctrineDoctrine. This case shows that if the performance consists of paying the money on one hand and on the other hand delivery of the deed has to be performed at the similar time. These are mutual and concurrent conditions and if one of the parties tenders the condition, the other party has to pay the default. Here tender is not performance but the performance is the DoctrineDoctrine of Consideration then the second party has to perform the payment of deed without Consideration.
The agreement of bilateral contracts the counter promise and not the performance when the Consideration is demanded. The Consideration has to be exchanged in the present scenario and not in the future.
Rules in Doctrine of Consideration:
Consideration can be from the past and should be executed and it should be mandatory executed. Consideration that was provided with the promise should be kept and completed. Executory Consideration consists of two promises and one promise will follow the second promise.
Consideration must move from the promisor and Consideration must be provided by the promisee as it was observed in Tweddle versus Atkinson in 1861.Tweddle promised William Guy that he will pay money for his child and similarly William Guy promised that he would pay money for Tweddle’s child. This will be done once the child gets married. But Guy failed to pay, so son of Tweddle sued him for the amount that was promised. The Court argued that the execution of the Consideration will not be done as the promise was done to the father. The DoctrineDoctrine of privity of contract was followed and it determined that promisee and promisor will be involved in the case. Promisee will provide Consideration and that is to the third party. This has to be agreed on the time promise was made.
Consideration should have economic value and the value should be negligible. The Consideration cannot be based on the sentimental or emotional value. The case study details were shown in the White versus Bluett in 1853.
Doctrine of Consideration cannot be made from the past and it must be given in return for the situation that will arise. This was observed in the cases of Roscorla versus Thomas in 1842 and ReMcardle in 1951. A similar exemplification was observed in the case of Lampleigh versus Braithwait in 1615.
Consideration must be sufficient in nature but it might not be adequate in nature. This was observed in case of Nestle versus Chappell in 1960. The case represented that contracts may come to the point of non-existence but it is sufficient to hold the agreement (speaking of the fine timeline that exists). Nestle had asked their customers to send a certain amount of chocolate wrappers to the company but most of the wrappers were thrown away and the Consideration to agreement was supported.The case considered whether Nestle should pay royalties to Chappel in return for the chocolate wrappers.
In the case of Doctrine of Consideration the total amount of payment is to be done, a lesser sum will not compensate for the full money that was promised. Pinnel’s case is quite evident with the phenomenon and the bilateral agreement was questioned. Similar case study of Foakes versus Beer in 1884.
The other cases that are considered in Doctrine of Consideration are Haigh versus Brooks in 1839. The guarantee provider in Consideration is enforceable but if the Court finds that defendant promise is not kept then the Consideration will not possess any ascertained value. The other such cases include Ward versus Byham in 1956; Glasbrook Bros Ltd versus Glamorgan CC in 1925. The bill of service rendered was rejected as the statutory duty was not considered as the DoctrineDoctrine of Consideration to support the agreement. These payments beyond statutory duty can support agreement while the performance of promise is projected by the third party. Another classic example of Stilk versus Myrick in 1809. The extra wage payment was neglected by Myrick and contract and performance of duty was reconsidered once the Court ruled out the case. The Hartley versus Ponsonby in 1857, Shadwall versus Shadwall in 1860 and Pau On versus Lau Yiu Long showed how the Doctrine of Consideration has changed through time with the dynamics of people’s need and Court’s inability and incomprehensiveness of the knowledge.
Conclusion
Doctrine of Consideration lacks the representation of technical requirements of reasonableness. The term “consideration” satisfactorily does not define the legal basis. The agreement differs with the performance of the promise. The unilateral and bilateral agreements have different considerations of legal rights. The consistency has to be enunciated from the Doctrine of Consideration. The legal idea of the case should define the concept of “perylous chose” with the existing technicality problems. The historical development has outgrown with the inclusion of work rank justice and the harshness of the DoctrineDoctrine had become less objectionable. Frederick Pollock argued that Doctrine of Consideration has failed to bring legitimate conclusions and it is inconceivable and the arguments are not illustratively explained.
The common-law rule encourages providing adequate knowledge since the social tie ups are practically judged under this, the accomplishment of authoritative agreement is required. The adjudication will overrun the entire DoctrineDoctrine but the logical attempt is essential to subterfuge the methods of the job that leads to confusion. Hence, equitable estoppels and legislature must act accordingly to bring the brief statute into accurate terms. The mutual assent of the parties is to be declared to show an analogous attempt that is gratuitous in nature to meet the requirement of Doctrine of Consideration.