Re mcardle 1951

Re Casey's Patent A and B owned a patent and C was the manager who had worked on it for two years.

Re mcardle 1951

It was held that as the sailors were already bound by their contract to sail back and to meet such emergencies of the voyage, promising to sail back was not valid consideration. His action therefore failed. It was held that sailing the ship back in such dangerous conditions was over and above their normal duties. It was held that Scotson's delivery of coal the performance of an existing contractual duty to a third party, X was a benefit to Pegg and was valid consideration. In this particular case, the claimant had carried out improvements to a house voluntarily. Note that in this case the tenants' work was carried out at their own behest, and not at the request of the owner. The occupants of a house carried out certain improvements during their tenancy, and were offered payment in recompense by the owner.

However, the owner died before doing so, and his representatives refused to honour the promise. It was not a gift; it was a promise to pay.

roscorla v thomas law teacher

Note that in this case the tenants' work was carried out at their own behest, and not at the request of the owner. Collins v Godefroy Godefroy promised to pay Collins if Collins would attend court and give evidence for Godefroy.

re caseys patents

Roffey, concerned that the work would not be completed on time and that as a result they would fall foul of a penalty clause in their main contract with the owner, agreed to pay Williams an extra payment per flat. Note that in this case the tenants' work was carried out at their own behest, and not at the request of the owner.

It was held that sailing the ship back in such dangerous conditions was over and above their normal duties. The captain promised to pay the remaining crew extra money if they sailed the ship back, but later refused to pay. In court the 4 other sons argued that the money paid by Marjorie was a gift as she had not provided any consideration for. The basis for this is that any promise made by a party to provide a benefit for the action of another party when that action was performed previous to and outside the promise, cannot be considered to have formed the necessary detriment essential to good consideration. It was held that although Lampleigh's consideration was past he had got the pardon Braithwaite's promise to pay could be linked to Braithwaite's earlier request and treated as one agreement, so it could be implied at the time of the request that Lampleigh would be paid. On the death of Mrs McArdle, Marjorie asked for the moneys to be paid, the four other children refused to pay her which resulted in her enforcing the property interest in court. Even though C's consideration was in the past, it had been done in a business situation, at the request of A and B and it was understood by both sides that C would be paid and the subsequent promise to pay merely fixed the amount. Scotson v Pegg Scotson contracted to deliver coal to X, or to X's order. Williams v Roffey Roffey had a contract to refurbish a block of flats and had sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams. The courts supported the owner's representatives, because the tenants had not provided good consideration.

Glassbrooke v GCC The police were under a duty to protect a coal mine during a strike, and proposed mobile units. It was held that Scotson's delivery of coal the performance of an existing contractual duty to a third party, X was a benefit to Pegg and was valid consideration.

Tweddle v atkinson

Had the owner explicitly requested the tenants to do the work, and then offered payment, the court may have been able to use the doctrine of Implicit assumpsit to incorporate the past work into the agreement, and thereby deem it consideration. Hartley v Ponsonby When nineteen out of thirty-six crew of a ship deserted, the captain promised to pay the remaining crew extra money to sail back, but later refused to pay saying that they were only doing their normal jobs. His action therefore failed. Williams v Roffey Roffey had a contract to refurbish a block of flats and had sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams. After the work had begun, it became apparent that Williams had underestimated the cost of the work and was in financial difficulties. Even though C's consideration was in the past, it had been done in a business situation, at the request of A and B and it was understood by both sides that C would be paid and the subsequent promise to pay merely fixed the amount. It was held that as Collins was under a legal duty to attend court he had not provided consideration. The extra protection was good consideration for the promise by the mine owner to pay for it and so the police were entitled to payment. In court the 4 other sons argued that the money paid by Marjorie was a gift as she had not provided any consideration for. Thus the captain did not have to pay the extra money. It is important to distinguish this from a detriment incurred by a party in return for the promise of a benefit to be received later. The courts supported the owner's representatives, because the tenants had not provided good consideration. The occupants of a house carried out certain improvements during their tenancy, and were offered payment in recompense by the owner. The police complied with this request but when they claimed the money, the mine owner refused to pay saying that the police had simply carried out their public duty.

In the Court of Appeal, Roffey argued that Williams was only doing what he was contractually bound to do and so had not provided consideration. He stopped work and brought an action for damages. The work had been completed before Marjorie had requested payment meaning her consideration was in the past.

In this case, however, the ship was so seriously undermanned that the rest of the journey had become extremely hazardous.

Roscorla v thomas

It could also been seen as a detriment to Scotson, as they could have broken their contract with X and paid damages. Note that in this case the tenants' work was carried out at their own behest, and not at the request of the owner. By not suing, however, the bank had shown forbearance and this was valid consideration, so the agreement to provide security was binding. The courts supported the owner's representatives, because the tenants had not provided good consideration. Williams completed the work on more flats but did not receive full payment. It was held that although the police were bound to provide protection, they had a discretion as to the form it should take. In court the 4 other sons argued that the money paid by Marjorie was a gift as she had not provided any consideration for. It is important to distinguish this from a detriment incurred by a party in return for the promise of a benefit to be received later. Williams v Roffey Roffey had a contract to refurbish a block of flats and had sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams. Had the owner explicitly requested the tenants to do the work, and then offered payment, the court may have been able to use the doctrine of Implicit assumpsit to incorporate the past work into the agreement, and thereby deem it consideration. It is important to distinguish this from a detriment incurred by a party in return for the promise of a benefit to be received later. Thus the captain did not have to pay the extra money. It was held that the promise was unenforceable as all the work had been done before the promise was made and was therefore past consideration.

The police complied with this request but when they claimed the money, the mine owner refused to pay saying that the police had simply carried out their public duty.

The occupants of a house carried out certain improvements during their tenancy, and were offered payment in recompense by the owner.

exceptions to past consideration
Rated 10/10 based on 4 review
Download
(DOC) CASES ON CONSIDERATION Re McArdle (