The Law Never Enforces Gratuitous Agreements

As mentioned above, taking into account the price set by the Promisor for the promise given. price, in this sense, is used in a broad sense; it must not be monetary, or even monetary; While it requires a certain “disadvantage” in the name of promise, this disadvantage may take the form of a renunciation of an otherwise granted freedom (for example, the promise. B to quit smoking or study every Saturday night) and the Promisor does not need to get any tangible benefits. In Carlill`s complaint, for example, the court found that it would be sufficient for Ms. Carlill to suffer the disadvantage of using the smokeball in the prescribed manner, even if the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was of no use (it was obiter, since the court found that the company had in fact received a benefit). There are exceptions, however; partial payment is a good consideration if, against a consideration, it is sometimes classified as “exported” and “executed”; both are enough. The considerations executed end with an action and not a promise of performance. Execution is a promise to do something. Most contracts are in the form of execution; they therefore include initial promises (for example. B promises to buy and sell, even if the payment and exchange of goods are almost instantaneous). Given his commitment (direct or indirect), he is not in favour of the promise to give and heed it – but, as noted above, it can take virtually all forms and, importantly, not be of a value comparable to that of the promise for which it is made. If the undertaking is already contractually bound to the beneficiary of the promise, the performance of an existing contractual obligation applies in principle, unless an additional benefit is granted. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether an additional benefit is granted; in particular, there may be an advantage if compliance with the existing obligation avoids problems related to non-performance! The additional factor is taken into account.

This is one of the sources of criticism of the general rule: the payment of $999 of $1,000 will not be a good idea for a promise to give up the balance of $1. However, the payment of $10 plus a pound worth $5 will be a good consideration (determined by the Promisor) for the promise to waive the balance of $990) The consideration must be made either with or after the promise. If the agreed consideration is before the commitment, it is not considered good (for example. B, A`s commitment to transfer ownership of a car to B in exchange for B aid granted to A in the previous month). This issue was discussed at Roscola v Thomas, where the promise was not binding, because the only “reflection” on the strength of a horse was to conclude the original contract – it was done before the engagement. Exception – a prior consideration may be a good consideration if (a) at the request of the responsible (b) the parties understood that the deed would be remunerated, and c) if the undertaking had been made before the deed, it would have been enforceable. The rule does not apply to unserlected or contentious claims. (2) The defendant must also consider a portion of the claim that promises to be honoured (3) plaintiff must rely on these grounds to his detriment; and Promissory estoppel is just (often called “equitable estoppel”) and works if it were unfair if the promisor was not kept to the promise – the modern doctrine developed by the Von Denning LJ judgment.