1123:), and allows the employee to resign for any reason. There are no duties of continued employment in the future. Therefore, when an employee demands a raise, there is no issue with consideration because the employee has no legal duty to continue working. Similarly, when an employer demands a pay-cut, there is also no contractual issue with consideration, because the employer has no legal duty to continue employing the worker. However, certain states require additional consideration other than the prospect of continued employment, to enforce terms demanded later by the employer, in particular, non-competition clauses.
1135:
he asks the uncle to pay up, and this time, in the subsequent lawsuit, the nephew may win. Although the promise of not drinking alcohol and gambling while under the age of 21 was not valuable consideration (it was already legally prohibited), most states allow smoking by age 18 and swearing is not illegal at any age. Even though smoking is legally restricted until age 18, it is legal for those above 18, and thus the promise to forbear from it entirely has legal value. However, the uncle would still be relieved from the liability if his nephew drank alcohol, even though
914:
rendered to him earlier. When consideration is given simultaneously with promise, it is said to be present consideration. For example, A receives Rs.50/- in return for which he promises to deliver certain goods to B. The money A receives is the present consideration. When consideration to one party to other is to pass subsequently to the maker of the contract, is said to be future consideration. For example. A promises to deliver certain goods to B after a week. B promises to pay the price after a fortnight, such consideration is future.
1175:
another $ 50,000, and no one else can produce it. If I do not produce your movie in that year, then you're free to go." If the two subsequently get into a dispute, the issue of whether a contract exists is answered. B had an option contract—he could decide to produce the script, or not. B's consideration passed was the $ 5,000 down, and the possibility of $ 50,000. A's consideration passed was the exclusive rights to the movie script for at least one year.
49:
1000:, which had grown up in medieval times and remained the normal action for breach of a simple contract in England and Wales until 1884 when the old forms of action were abolished; secondly, the notion of agreement between two or more parties as being the essential legal and moral foundation of contract in all legal systems, was promoted by the 18th-century French writer Pothier in his
1195:. Since there is no guarantee that A would win against B if it went to court, A may agree to drop the case if B pays the $ 5,000 compensatory damages. This is sufficient consideration, since B's consideration is a guaranteed recovery, and A's consideration is that B only has to pay $ 5,000, instead of $ 8,000.
1014:
systems take the approach that an exchange of promises, or a concurrence of wills alone, rather than an exchange in valuable rights is the correct basis. So if A promises to give B a book and B accepts the offer without giving anything in return, B would have a legal right to the book and A could not
1234:
similarly does not require consideration for a contract to be valid, thereby excluding the doctrine with regard to contracts covered by the convention even in common law jurisdictions where it would otherwise apply. Consequently, the continued existence of the doctrine in common law jurisdictions is
1203:
The primary criticism of the doctrine of consideration is that, in its present form, it is purely a formality that merely serves to complicate commerce and create legal uncertainty by opening up otherwise simple contracts to scrutiny as to whether the consideration purportedly tendered satisfies the
1147:
Generally, past consideration is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Past consideration is consideration that has already flowed from the promisee to the promisor. That is, the promisee's act or forbearance predates the promisor's promise. Past consideration therefore cannot be used as
1096:
The same applies if the consideration is a performance for which the parties had previously contracted. For example, A agrees to paint B's house for $ 500, but halfway through the job A tells B that he will not finish unless B increases the payment to $ 750. If B agrees, and A then finishes the job,
837:
it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding. The doctrine of consideration is irrelevant in many jurisdictions, although contemporary commercial litigant relations have held the relationship between a promise and a deed is a reflection of
1134:
Consider the uncle's situation above. If the same uncle had instead told his 13-year-old nephew the following offer: "if you do not smoke cigarettes, do not drink alcohol, swear or play cards for money (gamble) before your 21st birthday, then I will pay you $ 5,000". On the nephew's 21st birthday,
1057:
For instance, if A offers B $ 200 to buy B's mansion, luxury sports car, and private jet, there is still consideration on both sides. A's consideration is $ 200, and B's consideration is the mansion, car, and jet. Courts in the United States generally leave parties to their own contracts and do not
902:
It must move at the desire of the promisor. An act constituting consideration must have been done at the desire or request of the promisor. If it is done at the instance of a third party or without the desire of the promisor, it will not be good consideration. For example, A saves B's goods from a
893:
which continues in force in
Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India (the most populous common law jurisdiction) provides that valid consideration exists "when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do
820:
in painting his own house in a colour other than white, and B's consideration to A is $ 500 per year. Conversely, if A signs a contract to buy a car from B for $ 0, B's consideration is still the car, but A is giving no consideration, and so there is no valid contract. However, if B still gives the
1065:
to the other party. As a result, contracts in the United States have sometimes have had one party pass nominal amounts of consideration, typically citing $ 1. Thus, licensing contracts that do not involve any money at all often cite as consideration, "for the sum of $ 1 and other good and valuable
1092:
The prime example of this sub-issue is where an uncle gives his thirteen-year-old nephew (a resident of the state of New York) the following offer: "if you do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol until your 18th birthday, then I will pay you $ 5,000". On the nephew's 18th birthday, he tells the
913:
Consideration may be past, present or future. Past consideration is not consideration according to
English law. However it is a consideration as per Indian law. Example of past consideration is, A renders some service to B at latter's desire. After a month B promises to compensate A for service
788:
declared consideration to be a "Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit, or
Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, Responsibility". Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee; and typically the thing of value is goods,
1069:
However, some courts in the United States may take issue with nominal consideration, or consideration with virtually no value. Some courts have since thought this was a sham. Since contract disputes are typically resolved in state court, some state courts have found that merely providing $ 1 to
1310:
An agreement which tends to be injurious to the public or against the public good is void. For example, agreements of trading with a foreign enemy, agreement to commit a crime, agreements which interfere with the administration of justice, agreements which interfere with the course of justice,
1290:
If the object or the consideration of an agreement is for doing an act forbidden by law, the agreement is void. for example, A promises B to obtain employment in public service and B promises to pay Rs one lakh to A. The agreement is void as procuring a government job through unlawful means is
1174:
Suppose A is a movie script writer and B runs a movie production company. A says to B, "buy my script." B says "How about this – I will pay you $ 5,000 so that you do not let anyone else produce your movie until one year from now. If I do produce your movie in that year, then I will give you
1151:
An exception to this rule is where there is a duty owed to a third party. An act done before the giving of a promise to make a payment or to confer some other benefit can sometimes be consideration for the promise. For this to hold, three conditions must be satisfied (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long ):
1053:
Generally, courts do not inquire whether the deal between two parties was monetarily fair—merely that each party passed some legal obligation or duty to the other party. The dispositive issue is the presence of consideration, not the adequacy of the consideration. The values between
1981:
2 All ER 701 in which the wrappers from three chocolate bars was held to be part of the consideration for the sale and purchase of a musical recording – although those referencing this case appear to ignore the significance of the three wrappers in relation to Nestle's marketing
803:. Anything of value promised by one party to the other when making a contract can be treated as "consideration": for example, if A contracts to buy a car from B for $ 5,000, A's consideration is the promise of $ 5,000, and B's consideration is the promise of the car.
906:
Consideration may move from the promisee or any other person. Under Indian law, consideration may be from the promisee of any other person i.e., even a stranger. This means that as long as there is consideration for the promisee, it is immaterial who has furnished
917:
Consideration must be real. Consideration must be real, competent and having some value in the eyes of law. For example, A promises to restore life to B's dead wife, if B pays him Rs.1000/—. A's promise is physically impossible to perform, hence there is no real
1300:
For example, A borrows Rs.100/— from B and executes a bond to work for B without pay for a period of 2 years. In case of default, A owes the principal sum at once and a huge amount of interest. This contract was held void as it involved injury to the
1093:
uncle to pay up, and the uncle does not pay. In the subsequent lawsuit, the uncle wins, because the nephew, by U.S. criminal law, already had a duty to refrain from smoking cigarettes while under 18 and from drinking alcohol while under age 21.
806:
Additionally, if A signs a contract with B such that A will paint B's house for $ 500, A's consideration is the service of painting B's house, and B's consideration is $ 500 paid to A. Further if A signs a contract with B such that A will
995:
The reason that both exist in common law jurisdictions is thought by leading scholars to be the result of the combining by 19th-century judges of two distinct threads: first the consideration requirement was at the heart of the action of
921:
Consideration must be something which the promisor is not already bound to do. A promise to do something what one is already bound to do, either by law, is not a good consideration, since it adds nothing to the previous existing legal
1991:
1088:
has a legal duty to provide money, an object, a service, or a forbearance, does not provide consideration when promising merely to uphold that duty. That legal duty can arise from law, or obligation under a previous contract.
979:
Systems based on Roman law (including
Germany and Scotland) do not require consideration, and some commentators consider it unnecessary and have suggested that the doctrine of consideration should be abandoned, and
811:
repaint his own house in any other colour than white, and B will pay A $ 500 per year to keep this deal up, there is also a consideration. Although A did not promise to affirmatively do anything, A did promise
1204:
requirements of the law. While the purpose of the doctrine was ostensibly to protect parties seeking to void oppressive contracts, this is currently accomplished through the use of a sophisticated variety of
1704:"Contract opposed to public policy can be repudiated by the court of law even if that contract is beneficial for all of the parties to the contract. What considerations and objects are lawful and what not –
1359:
For instance, some may assert that agreeing to sell a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract – although there are no cited cases of such trivial compensation being recognised by the court as
1108:. If a creditor has a credit against a debtor for $ 10,000, and offers to settle it for $ 5,000, it is still binding, if accepted, even though the debtor had a legal duty to repay the entire $ 10,000.
1231:
310:
1070:
another is not a sufficiently legal duty, and therefore no legal consideration passes in these kinds of deals, and consequently, no contract is formed. However, this is a minority position.
1220:
consideration, i.e. consideration that is trivial but still satisfies the requirements of law, although texts and commentators making such assertions do have a credible basis for doing so.
898:
for entering into a contractual obligation. An agreement must be supported by a lawful consideration on both sides. Under the act, valid consideration must satisfy the following criteria:
1247:-sponsored proposal to both unite and codify English and Scots Law, proposed the abolition of consideration. Some commentators have suggested that consideration be replaced by
1004:, much read (especially after translation into English in 1805) by English judges and jurists. The latter chimed well with the fashionable will theories of the time, especially
1758:
315:
971:
The most noticeable distinction between the
English and Indian criteria for consideration is that English law prohibits past consideration while Indian law does not.
1580:
2017:
1608:
1251:
as a basis for contracts. However, any change to the doctrine of consideration in the jurisdictions in which it exists would need to implemented by legislation.
1524:
1792:
1510:
1324:
This deals with two categories. One is agreements restraining enforcement of rights and the other deals with agreements curtailing the period of limitation.
1538:
583:
688:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1139:
consideration is valueless, because it was paired with something of legal value; therefore, adherence to the entire, collective agreement is necessary.
529:
1594:
578:
1008:'s influential ideas on free will, and got grafted on to the traditional common law requirement for consideration to ground an action in assumpsit.
1461:
1227:
703:
270:
1872:
1208:
available to the party seeking to void a contract. In practice, the doctrine of consideration has resulted in a phenomenon similar to that of
1097:
B still only needs to pay A the $ 500 originally agreed to, because A was already contractually obligated to paint the house for that amount.
1566:
882:
Moral consideration is not sufficient (except for contracts by deed, where "love and affection" is often cited as the consideration).
517:
2054:
1810:
929:
to something given. So long as consideration exists, the courts are not concerned as to adequacy, provided it is for some value.
1216:
to satisfy requirements while in actual fact circumventing them in practice. Typically, this is often described in the form of
748:
1977:
721:
1230:
on the grounds that it yields uncertainty and unnecessary litigation, thereby hindering international trade. Similarly, the
1131:
Contracts where a legally valueless term is bundled with a term that does have legal value are still generally enforceable.
2030:
1119:
allows the employer to terminate the employee for good or even no reason (as long as the reason, if any, is not explicitly
838:
the nature of contractual considerations. If there is no element of consideration found, there is thus no contract formed.
1159:
The parties must have understood the act was to be remunerated either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit
964:
The consideration involves involuntary labour or otherwise infringes upon the personal liberty of a party to the contract
17:
799:
Consideration may be thought of as the concept of value offered and accepted by people or organisations entering into
1904:
1265:
988:, rather than judicial development, has been touted as the only way to remove this entrenched common law doctrine.
334:
298:
1430:
1260:
841:
However, even if a court decides there is no contract, there might be a possible recovery under the doctrines of
327:
31:
1873:"Supreme Court of Texas (1464-EIGHT, LTD. & MILLIS MANAGEMENT CORP, v. GAIL ANN JOPPICH See section III)"
1664:
1350:
Agreements which unduly restrict the personal liberty of parties to it are void as contrary to public policy.
1333:
Agreements for sale or transfer of public offices and title or for procurement of a public recognition like
593:
183:
992:
famously stated that "The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind".
816:
to do something that he was allowed to do, and so A did pass consideration. A's consideration to B is the
1717:
863:
There are a number of common issues as to whether consideration exists in a contract. Under
English law:
78:
821:
title to the car to A, then B cannot take the car back, since, while it may not be a valid contract, it
1876:
741:
613:
339:
692:
1692:
1373:
famously stated, "The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind."
1312:
890:
588:
547:
459:
1948:
1162:
Payment/conferment of the benefit must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
2026:
1855:
1819:
1011:
395:
108:
1859:
1823:
1779:
1105:
1101:
717:
568:
377:
227:
1936:
1900:
1079:
953:
293:
253:
178:
154:
136:
2049:
1622:
789:
money, or an act. Forbearance to act, such as an adult promising to refrain from smoking, is
734:
710:
573:
141:
1851:
1188:
1021:
601:
438:
288:
167:
73:
68:
2022:
1815:
526:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
8:
933:
Additionally, under the Indian
Contract Act 1872, any consideration is invalid if it is:
357:
248:
113:
93:
1920:
1650:
1496:
1271:
1217:
1213:
1116:
1112:
1061:
926:
852:
720:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
643:
606:
448:
420:
386:
279:
264:
258:
232:
1964:
1678:
1552:
1058:
intervene. The old
English rule of consideration questioned whether a party gave the
1016:
500:
489:
210:
159:
150:
131:
88:
1037:
that provides for the creation of legal obligations if a party has given another an
949:
It is fraudulent, or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another
1771:
1486:, 9 App Cas 605, (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605, (1884) 9 App Cas 605 (16 May 1884)
1483:
1447:
1192:
1005:
958:
The consideration conveyed by at least one side seeks to restrain legal proceedings
523:
410:
405:
367:
362:
205:
188:
946:
It is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law
1797:
1730:
1334:
1236:
1042:
772:
415:
145:
122:
1636:
1244:
848:
843:
661:
552:
483:
468:
216:
63:
1038:
910:
Consideration must be an act, abstinence or forbearance or a returned promise.
894:
or abstain from doing something" or, in other words, when each party receives
2043:
1734:
1478:
1240:
879:
Consideration must not be past. Past consideration is not good consideration.
784:
452:
200:
173:
1776:
A History of the Common Law of
Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit
1341:
etc. for monetary consideration is unlawful, being opposed to public policy.
903:
fire without B asking him to do so; A cannot demand payment for his service.
870:
Consideration must move from the promisee but need not flow to the promisor.
195:
1370:
1034:
989:
895:
656:
651:
638:
429:
83:
1232:
United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
1054:
consideration passed by each party to a contract need not be comparable.
1030:
985:
967:
The consideration includes a marriage or a pecuniary inducement to marry.
790:
765:
494:
400:
305:
222:
1706:
Newar Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
1338:
834:
826:
768:
696:
679:
98:
1431:
Agreement, Mistake, and Objectivity in the Bargain Theory of Conflict
1209:
997:
647:
322:
48:
1029:, is increasingly used to create obligations during pre-contractual
1248:
1224:
1026:
981:
800:
779:). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.
477:
372:
40:
1166:
443:
1770:
For a detailed and authoritative account of this process, see
1171:
Generally, conditional consideration is valid consideration.
1015:
change her mind about giving it to B as a gift. However, in
1759:
Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd.
1223:
The doctrine of consideration is expressly rejected by the
1184:
776:
633:
873:
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
885:
Performance of existing duties is not good consideration.
623:
2018:
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
1992:
Uniform Principles of International Commercial Contracts
1542:
QB 705 (aka North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction)
1212:
in Islamic contracts, whereby parties to a contract use
713:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
925:
Consideration need not be adequate. Consideration need
984:
used to replace it as a basis for contracts. However,
858:
1897:
Andrew Hennessey v Architectus Group Holdings Pty Ltd
1156:
The act must have been done at the promisor's request
940:
It involves injury to a person or property of another
2003:
e.g. P.S. Atiyah, 'Consideration: A Restatement' in
1745:
e.g. P.S. Atiyah, 'Consideration: A Restatement' in
716:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
1848:
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth
1270:Consideration is not required for a contract under
961:
The consideration includes public offices or titles
1048:
530:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
1841:
1041:and the other has relied on the assurance to his
2041:
1228:Principles of International Commercial Contracts
685:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1949:Hamer v Sidway |parallelcite=(1891) 124 NY 538
1167:Option contracts and conditional consideration
974:
796:if one is thereby surrendering a legal right.
742:
1708:, Jaipur, 1993 Cr. L.J. 1191 at 1197, 1198 "
1073:
775:but not for special contracts (contracts by
1803:
722:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
2010:
749:
735:
1115:depend largely on state law. Generally,
1473:
1471:
1811:Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher
867:Part payment is not good consideration.
14:
2042:
1978:Chappell & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd
518:Duty of honest contractual performance
27:Concept in the common law of contracts
2007:(1986) p.195, Oxford University Press
1749:(1986) p.195, Oxford University Press
1468:
1142:
706:of International Commercial Contracts
1100:An exception to this rule holds for
859:Legal rules regarding consideration
695:and other civil codes based on the
24:
25:
2066:
1178:
927:not necessarily be equal in value
876:Consideration cannot be illusory.
1921:[1809] EWHC J58 (KB)
1266:Consideration under American law
1126:
1111:Pre-existing duties relating to
520:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
335:Enforcement of foreign judgments
299:Hague Choice of Court Convention
47:
1997:
1985:
1970:
1953:
1942:
1926:
1910:
1890:
1865:
1829:
1785:
1764:
1752:
1739:
1723:
1711:
1698:
1685:
1671:
1657:
1643:
1629:
1615:
1612:(aka Stewart v Casey) 1 Ch 104
1601:
1587:
1573:
1559:
1545:
1531:
1517:
1363:
1353:
1344:
1327:
1318:
1304:
1294:
1284:
1261:Consideration under English law
1148:a basis when claiming damages.
1049:Monetary value of consideration
2055:Legal doctrines and principles
1503:
1489:
1454:
1440:
1423:
1411:
1399:
1387:
1187:against A, causing $ 5,000 in
328:Singapore Mediation Convention
32:Consideration (disambiguation)
13:
1:
1665:Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
1435:William & Mary Law Review
1380:
1205:
702:5 Explicitly rejected by the
469:Quasi-contractual obligations
2023:[2007] EWCA Civ 1329
1235:controversial. Scots lawyer
1198:
943:Courts regards it as immoral
847:(sometimes referred to as a
7:
1254:
975:History and comparative law
10:
2071:
1077:
340:Hague Judgments Convention
29:
1901:[2010] NSWSC 1390
1313:maintenance and champerty
1074:Pre-existing legal duties
891:Indian Contract Act, 1872
691:4 Specific to the German
1693:Indian Contract Act 1872
1277:
396:Anticipatory repudiation
146:unequal bargaining power
1965:[1842] EWHC J74
1780:Oxford University Press
1720:, accessed 15 July 2017
1718:German Civil Code § 311
1581:Lampleigh v Braithwaite
1106:accord and satisfaction
771:and is a necessity for
718:Uniform Commercial Code
693:BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch
378:Third-party beneficiary
350:Rights of third parties
228:Accord and satisfaction
1500:, (1861) 1 B&S 393
1311:stifling prosecution,
1080:Pre-existing duty rule
1002:Traite des Obligations
449:Liquidated, stipulated
294:Forum selection clause
179:Frustration of purpose
1923:, (1809) 170 ER 1168.
1852:[1954] HCA 20
1623:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
1598:(1863) 13 CB (NS) 677
1484:[1884] UKHL 1
711:Canadian contract law
79:Abstraction principle
2033:(England and Wales).
1967:, (1842) 114 ER 496.
1907:(NSW, Australia)
1816:[1988] HCA 7
1793:Austotel v Franklins
1654:(1857) 7 E&B 872
1511:De la Bere v Pearson
1451:(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a
1429:Bronaugh R. (1976).
1371:Lord Justice Denning
1189:compensatory damages
1183:Suppose B commits a
1022:culpa in contrahendo
990:Lord Justice Denning
540:Related areas of law
439:Specific performance
289:Choice of law clause
254:Contract of adhesion
168:Culpa in contrahendo
74:Meeting of the minds
69:Offer and acceptance
30:For other uses, see
1396:(1875) LR 10 Ex 893
896:something in return
853:promissory estoppel
704:UNIDROIT Principles
478:Promissory estoppel
358:Privity of contract
311:New York Convention
271:UNIDROIT Principles
114:Collateral contract
109:Implication-in-fact
94:Invitation to treat
18:Consideration (law)
2005:Essays on Contract
1747:Essays on Contract
1651:Hartley v Ponsonby
1640:(1809), 2 Camp 317
1609:Re Casey's Patents
1539:The Atlantic Baron
1525:Chappell v Nestlés
1497:Tweddle v Atkinson
1272:Scots contract law
1143:Past consideration
1117:at-will employment
1113:at-will employment
1035:equitable doctrine
1017:common law systems
952:It is contrary to
524:Duty of good faith
421:Fundamental breach
387:Breach of contract
316:UNCITRAL Model Law
280:Dispute resolution
265:Contra proferentem
259:Integration clause
233:Exculpatory clause
1961:Roscorla v Thomas
1679:Williams v Roffey
1553:Roscorla v Thomas
1033:. Estoppel is an
759:
758:
602:England and Wales
510:Duties of parties
501:Negotiorum gestio
490:Unjust enrichment
211:Statute of frauds
160:Unconscionability
132:Misrepresentation
89:Mirror image rule
16:(Redirected from
2062:
2034:
2014:
2008:
2001:
1995:
1989:
1983:
1974:
1968:
1957:
1951:
1946:
1940:
1930:
1924:
1914:
1908:
1894:
1888:
1887:
1885:
1884:
1875:. Archived from
1869:
1863:
1845:
1839:
1833:
1827:
1807:
1801:
1789:
1783:
1782:: Oxford, 1975).
1772:A. W. B. Simpson
1768:
1762:
1756:
1750:
1743:
1737:
1727:
1721:
1715:
1709:
1702:
1696:
1689:
1683:
1675:
1669:
1661:
1655:
1647:
1641:
1633:
1627:
1619:
1613:
1605:
1599:
1591:
1585:
1577:
1571:
1563:
1557:
1549:
1543:
1535:
1529:
1521:
1515:
1507:
1501:
1493:
1487:
1475:
1466:
1465:(1854) 5 HLC 185
1458:
1452:
1444:
1438:
1427:
1421:
1415:
1409:
1408:(1846) 2 CB 548
1403:
1397:
1391:
1374:
1367:
1361:
1357:
1351:
1348:
1342:
1331:
1325:
1322:
1316:
1308:
1302:
1298:
1292:
1288:
1193:punitive damages
1066:consideration."
1006:John Stuart Mill
937:Forbidden by law
773:simple contracts
764:is a concept of
751:
744:
737:
579:China (mainland)
548:Conflict of laws
411:Efficient breach
406:Exclusion clause
206:Illusory promise
189:Impracticability
51:
37:
36:
21:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2031:Court of Appeal
2015:
2011:
2002:
1998:
1990:
1986:
1975:
1971:
1958:
1954:
1947:
1943:
1933:Wigan v Edwards
1931:
1927:
1915:
1911:
1895:
1891:
1882:
1880:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1846:
1842:
1836:Thomas v Thomas
1834:
1830:
1808:
1804:
1790:
1786:
1769:
1765:
1757:
1753:
1744:
1740:
1731:Harvey McGregor
1728:
1724:
1716:
1712:
1703:
1699:
1690:
1686:
1676:
1672:
1662:
1658:
1648:
1644:
1634:
1630:
1620:
1616:
1606:
1602:
1595:Kennedy v Broun
1592:
1588:
1578:
1574:
1564:
1560:
1556:(1842) 3 QB 234
1550:
1546:
1536:
1532:
1522:
1518:
1508:
1504:
1494:
1490:
1476:
1469:
1459:
1455:
1445:
1441:
1428:
1424:
1420:(1853) 2 WR 75
1416:
1412:
1404:
1400:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1368:
1364:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1335:Padma Vibhushan
1332:
1328:
1323:
1319:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1280:
1257:
1237:Harvey McGregor
1201:
1191:and $ 3,000 in
1181:
1169:
1145:
1129:
1082:
1076:
1051:
1019:the concept of
977:
889:Meanwhile, the
861:
832:
755:
726:
598:United Kingdom
561:By jurisdiction
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2068:
2058:
2057:
2052:
2036:
2035:
2009:
1996:
1984:
1969:
1952:
1941:
1925:
1917:Stilk v Myrick
1909:
1889:
1864:
1840:
1828:
1802:
1784:
1763:
1751:
1738:
1722:
1710:
1697:
1684:
1670:
1656:
1642:
1637:Stilk v Myrick
1628:
1614:
1600:
1586:
1584:(1615) Hob 105
1572:
1558:
1544:
1530:
1516:
1502:
1488:
1467:
1462:Jorden v Money
1453:
1439:
1422:
1418:White v Bluett
1410:
1398:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1362:
1352:
1343:
1326:
1317:
1303:
1293:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1268:
1263:
1256:
1253:
1245:Law Commission
1214:technicalities
1200:
1197:
1180:
1179:In settlements
1177:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1144:
1141:
1128:
1125:
1078:Main article:
1075:
1072:
1050:
1047:
976:
973:
969:
968:
965:
962:
959:
956:
950:
947:
944:
941:
938:
931:
930:
923:
922:consideration.
919:
918:consideration.
915:
911:
908:
904:
887:
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
868:
860:
857:
849:quasi-contract
844:quantum meruit
795:
757:
756:
754:
753:
746:
739:
731:
728:
727:
725:
724:
714:
709:6 Specific to
707:
700:
689:
686:
683:
678:1 Specific to
675:
672:
671:
667:
666:
665:
664:
659:
654:
641:
636:
628:
627:
619:
618:
617:
616:
611:
610:
609:
604:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
563:
562:
558:
557:
556:
555:
553:Commercial law
550:
542:
541:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
521:
512:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
497:
492:
487:
484:Quantum meruit
480:
472:
471:
465:
464:
463:
462:
457:
456:
455:
441:
433:
432:
426:
425:
424:
423:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
390:
389:
383:
382:
381:
380:
375:
370:
365:
360:
352:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
332:
331:
330:
320:
319:
318:
313:
303:
302:
301:
291:
283:
282:
276:
275:
274:
273:
268:
261:
256:
251:
249:Parol evidence
243:
242:
241:Interpretation
238:
237:
236:
235:
230:
225:
220:
217:Non est factum
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
192:
191:
186:
181:
171:
164:
163:
162:
148:
139:
134:
126:
125:
119:
118:
117:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
71:
66:
58:
57:
53:
52:
44:
43:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2067:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2045:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2013:
2006:
2000:
1993:
1988:
1980:
1979:
1973:
1966:
1962:
1956:
1950:
1945:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1922:
1918:
1913:
1906:
1905:Supreme Court
1902:
1898:
1893:
1879:on 2013-06-16
1878:
1874:
1868:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1844:
1837:
1832:
1825:
1821:
1818:, (1988) 164
1817:
1813:
1812:
1806:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1788:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1767:
1760:
1755:
1748:
1742:
1736:
1735:Contract Code
1732:
1726:
1719:
1714:
1707:
1701:
1694:
1688:
1681:
1680:
1674:
1667:
1666:
1660:
1653:
1652:
1646:
1639:
1638:
1632:
1625:
1624:
1618:
1611:
1610:
1604:
1597:
1596:
1590:
1583:
1582:
1576:
1569:
1568:
1562:
1555:
1554:
1548:
1541:
1540:
1534:
1527:
1526:
1520:
1513:
1512:
1506:
1499:
1498:
1492:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:Foakes v Beer
1474:
1472:
1464:
1463:
1457:
1450:
1449:
1448:Pinnel's Case
1443:
1436:
1432:
1426:
1419:
1414:
1407:
1406:Wade v Simeon
1402:
1395:
1394:Currie v Misa
1390:
1386:
1372:
1366:
1356:
1347:
1340:
1336:
1330:
1321:
1314:
1307:
1297:
1287:
1283:
1273:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1252:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:Contract Code
1238:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1196:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1176:
1172:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1140:
1138:
1132:
1127:Bundled terms
1124:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1107:
1104:, such as an
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1084:A party that
1081:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1055:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
993:
991:
987:
983:
972:
966:
963:
960:
957:
955:
954:public policy
951:
948:
945:
942:
939:
936:
935:
934:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
897:
892:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
865:
864:
856:
854:
850:
846:
845:
839:
836:
830:
828:
824:
819:
815:
810:
804:
802:
797:
793:
792:
787:
786:
785:Currie v Misa
782:The court in
780:
778:
774:
770:
767:
763:
762:Consideration
752:
747:
745:
740:
738:
733:
732:
730:
729:
723:
719:
715:
712:
708:
705:
701:
698:
694:
690:
687:
684:
682:jurisdictions
681:
677:
676:
674:
673:
669:
668:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
620:
615:
614:United States
612:
608:
605:
603:
600:
599:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
566:
565:
564:
560:
559:
554:
551:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
539:
538:
531:
528:
527:
525:
522:
519:
516:
515:
514:
513:
509:
508:
503:
502:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
485:
481:
479:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
467:
466:
461:
458:
454:
453:penal damages
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:Money damages
442:
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
428:
427:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
384:
379:
376:
374:
371:
369:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
349:
348:
341:
338:
337:
336:
333:
329:
326:
325:
324:
321:
317:
314:
312:
309:
308:
307:
304:
300:
297:
296:
295:
292:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
277:
272:
269:
267:
266:
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
239:
234:
231:
229:
226:
224:
223:Unclean hands
221:
219:
218:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
190:
187:
185:
184:Impossibility
182:
180:
177:
176:
175:
174:Force majeure
172:
170:
169:
165:
161:
158:
157:
156:
155:public policy
152:
149:
147:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
121:
120:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
104:Consideration
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
54:
50:
46:
45:
42:
39:
38:
33:
19:
2050:Contract law
2016:
2012:
2004:
1999:
1987:
1976:
1972:
1960:
1955:
1944:
1932:
1928:
1916:
1912:
1896:
1892:
1881:. Retrieved
1877:the original
1867:
1862:(Australia).
1854:, (1954) 92
1847:
1843:
1835:
1831:
1826:(Australia).
1809:
1805:
1791:
1787:
1775:
1766:
1754:
1746:
1741:
1725:
1713:
1705:
1700:
1687:
1677:
1673:
1663:
1659:
1649:
1645:
1635:
1631:
1621:
1617:
1607:
1603:
1593:
1589:
1579:
1575:
1565:
1561:
1551:
1547:
1537:
1533:
1523:
1519:
1509:
1505:
1495:
1491:
1477:
1460:
1456:
1446:
1442:
1434:
1425:
1417:
1413:
1405:
1401:
1393:
1389:
1365:
1355:
1346:
1329:
1320:
1306:
1296:
1286:
1222:
1218:"peppercorn"
1202:
1182:
1173:
1170:
1150:
1146:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1120:
1110:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1085:
1083:
1068:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1031:negotiations
1025:, a form of
1020:
1010:
1001:
994:
978:
970:
932:
888:
862:
842:
840:
831:
822:
817:
813:
808:
805:
798:
783:
781:
761:
760:
657:Criminal law
639:Property law
594:Saudi Arabia
499:
482:
263:
215:
166:
103:
84:Posting rule
41:Contract law
1626:AC 614 (PC)
1360:sufficient.
1291:prohibited.
1102:settlements
1060:value of a
986:legislation
818:forbearance
791:enforceable
495:Restitution
306:Arbitration
2044:Categories
1883:2012-06-15
1860:High Court
1824:High Court
1796:(1989) 16
1682:2 WLR 1153
1567:Re McArdle
1381:References
1339:Padma Shri
1062:peppercorn
835:common law
769:common law
697:pandectist
680:common law
460:Rescission
368:Delegation
363:Assignment
151:Illegality
99:Firm offer
1982:strategy.
1935:(1973) 1
1199:Criticism
1043:detriment
1039:assurance
1012:Civil law
998:assumpsit
801:contracts
699:tradition
569:Australia
416:Deviation
323:Mediation
56:Formation
1514:1 KB 280
1255:See also
1249:estoppel
1225:UNIDROIT
1206:defences
1027:estoppel
982:estoppel
825:a valid
662:Evidence
634:Tort law
607:Scotland
430:Remedies
373:Novation
196:Hardship
123:Defences
64:Capacity
1301:person.
1121:illegal
1086:already
766:English
652:estates
584:Ireland
201:Set-off
142:Threats
137:Mistake
1994:, 2016
1838:(1842)
1761:KB 130
1668:AC 270
1570:Ch 669
650:, and
648:trusts
622:Other
574:Canada
2029:130,
2021:
1963:
1919:
1899:
1858:424,
1850:
1822:387,
1814:
1798:NSWLR
1729:See:
1528:AC 87
1482:
1278:Notes
1243:", a
1210:Ḥiyal
851:) or
670:Notes
644:Wills
626:areas
589:India
451:, or
401:Cover
1959:see
1939:497.
1695:s.2d
1691:The
1239:'s "
1185:tort
1137:that
827:gift
794:only
777:deed
153:and
144:and
2025:,
1937:ALR
1856:CLR
1820:CLR
1800:582
1778:, (
1733:'s
1369:As
1337:or
907:it.
833:In
814:not
809:not
624:law
2046::
2027:KB
1903:,
1774:,
1470:^
1433:.
1045:.
855:.
829:.
823:is
646:,
1886:.
1437:.
1315:.
750:e
743:t
736:v
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
