Contract Law - Doctrine of Consideration
The doctrine of consideration has been a source of much discussion over the years. In 1937, the doctrine of consideration was under review by the English Law Revision Committee. They suggested that "the inconvenience and possible injustice resulting from the doctrine of consideration raise the question whether it presents countervailing disadvantages which justify its retention." Furthermore they acknowledged that the French Civil Code finds 'cause' as the important component in a contract. In Germany, the law looks at the 'intention' of the parties that make up the contract. Both societies do not recognise the doctrine of consideration, yet they are both highly developed legal systems, and they operate without the difficulties that our society experiences with the doctrine of consideration. They also acknowledged that, even though there was much support for the abolition of this doctrine, it was "so deeply embedded in...law that any measure which proposed to do away with it altogether would almost certainly arouse suspicion and hostility." The English Law Revision Committee therefore suggested amending the doctrine to eliminate those aspects which may cause both hardship and unnecessary inconvenience. The committee bel
· Consideration must be present in every 'simple' contract One principle of consideration is that a promise to perform an existing duty is no consideration. This was the case in Stylk v Myrick . In this case Stylk was a member of a ship's crew. As two seamen from his crew had deserted, Myrick offered to share the wages of the two deserters amongst the remaining crew. Upon arrival at the ship's destination, Myrick failed to pay the extra wages. The matter was heard before court which ruled in favour of Myrick. The principle adopted here was that the performance of an existing duty provided no consideration for the promise to be enforceable. · And that consideration must be sufficient, thereby being recognisable in the eyes of the law. This is a clear example of the courts utilising their judgements so as to not cause hardship or unnecessary inconvenience. The courts distinguished the Stylk v Myrick case from the Williams v Roffey Bros case by stating that the former was a case involving contracts at sea and that the courts had to be careful with their decisions so as not to leave captains of ships at the mercy of their crew members. If the same rationale was used in Stylk v Myrick as was used in Williams v Roffey Bros, Stylk provided Myrick with a practical benefit, that being that Myrick was able to make it to the port in sufficient time, and not having to source an extra seaman. Therefore the outcome of that case could possibly be different in light of the Williams v Roffey case. This is a good example where the rule that performance of an existing duty is no consideration, has been altered to take into account other details so as to make the doctrine more flexible.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Revision Committee, Roffey Bros, Pty Ltd, Fredrick Pollock, Blue Circle, Stores Maher, Supreme Court, Myrick Stylk, Waltons Stores, Civil Code, roffey bros, doctrine consideration, unnecessary inconvenience, · consideration, williams roffey, existing duty, hardship unnecessary inconvenience, hardship unnecessary, insurance co ltd, consideration ·, pty ltd, law revision committee, insurance co, williams roffey bros, english law revision,
Approximate Word count = 1721
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
