Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been ...
Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act. In broad terms, if one agrees to do something he was not otherwise legally obligated to do, it may be said that he has given consideration.
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts (but not for special contracts by deed).The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States.
The situation is different under contracts within civil law jurisdictions because such nominal consideration can be categorised as a disguised gift. [4] The remainder of this section is a U.S. perception, not English. However, courts will not generally inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party. [5]
Consideration, Good faith, negotiable instruments Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875–76) LR 1 App Cas 554, is an English contract law case, which in the Exchequer Chamber contains a famous statement by Lush J giving the definition of consideration in English law .
Consideration need not be of the same value as the other party's promise. For example, a peppercorn in contract law describes a very small and inadequate consideration. Consideration must be legal i.e., not prohibited by the law. The insufficiency of past consideration is related to the pre-existing duty rule.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
This was fully linked to the doctrine of consideration, and established as such, with the more famous case of Tweddle v. Atkinson. In this case the plaintiff was unable to sue the executor of his father-in-law, who had promised to the plaintiff's father to make payment to the plaintiff, because he had not provided any consideration to the contract.