LAW OF CONTRACT

Explain whether Mary is required by the law of contract to fulfil her promises??

1)She back home to find that her house floor have been cleaned by John and she promises to pay John $50 for his work.

2) She promise to sell an expensive ring to Lily for $800.

3)She agrees to pay Kitty $900 for painting her house within 2 weeks and she later promises a further $100 if Kitty finished the job on time.

4)She promises to deliver goods to Ben in return for a payment to her of $60 by Ann.

5)She promises to release Peter from a debt of $5000 if Peter pays her $3000

p.s: any relevant legal case and legislation to support??

THX!!

2 Answers

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    1. Not required.

    There is no valid contract since past consideration is not goodconsideration. This is because the consideration was already completedbefore Mary made the promise to pay, so John have not given anythingnew in return for the promise.

    2. Required.

    There is clearly a valid contract. The court will not inquire into the adequacy of the contract. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. That is, a party must give something in return for some benefits, but the value of the benefit an detriment will not be measured by the court. Mary is free to sell the ring to Lily for $1 as long as not $0.

    3. Required.

    According to William v Roffrey Brothers, a promise to pay more for thecompletion of existing contractual duties is supported by considerationas long as there is a practical benefit to the promisor, such asgetting the job finished on time. If Kitty finish the job on time, she actually obtains practical benefits. Therefore, there is good consideration and a valid contract.

    4. Not required.

    There is no valid contract as there is no reciprocity: Ben has sufferedno detriment or conferred no benefit while receiving the goods.

    5. Not required.

    There is no valid contract because a promise to receive part paymentfor the settlement of an existing debt is not supported byconsideration (Foakes v Beer)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    1. Required.

    2. Not required.

    3. Not required.

    4. Not required.

    5. Not required.

    A valid contract has three elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration.

    In order for us to see this case, we ignore the consideration based on the limited detail of the questions.

    All questions above consist of offers. However, only #1 shows that the offers has been accepted by performance. Therefore, unless you have a acceptance by performance, you have no contract at all.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.