Alteration promises on the back of an original contract - enforceable?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Consideration Definition: X promises not to file a suit against Y if Y pays him $100 by a fixed date. The forbearance of X is the consideration for Y's.
Advertisements

Contract.
Chapter 5: Mutual Assent
(Part One): The Elements
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 15: Third-Party Rights and Discharge.
Chapter 11 CONSIDERATION.
Consideration Chapter 8.
Business Law: Ch 8 Consideration.
Section 8.1.
E- CONTRACTING MIDTERM(2). Definition E- Contract- a contract that is entered into in cyberspace and is evidenced only by electronic impulses (such as.
AN UPDATE ON TUPE November 2009 Aron Neilson UNISON.
Chapter 11 Contracts — Consideration. Introduction Consideration is legal value given in return for a promise or performance. Must have something of legal.
Section 8.1.
Law of Contract Consideration Part Payment of Debt
Introduction to English Law of Obligations (2014/2015) dr Jan Halberda.
Copyright © 2004 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 1 PART 3 – THE LAW OF CONTRACTS  Chapter 11 – The Extent of Contractual Rights Prepared by Douglas H. Peterson,
CONSIDERATION.
Methods of Avoiding Judicial Precedent
Agreement and Consideration in Contracts Chapter 7.
Chapter 14.1 Consideration. Consideration is either: some detriment to the promisee, that the promisee may give value; or some benefit to the promisor,
Law of Contract Consideration Part Payment of Debt
What is the difference between an assignment and a delegation?
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Third-Party Rights.
Chapter 4: Consideration (Bargained for Exchange)
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 11 Consideration and Equity Chapter 11 Consideration and Equity.
Prepared by Douglas Peterson, University of Alberta 8-1 Part 3 – The Law of Contract Chapter 8 Requirement of Consideration.
Chapter 9 Fundamental Legal Principles
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
Business Law and the Regulation of Business Chapter 12: Consideration
Legal Principles of Insurance Chapter 9. Agenda Recall topics learned in your insurance or business law class to better understand this chapter Principle.
Copyright Guy Harley Week 5 Consideration.
The Terms of a Contract 2 Quick Review A B CCC’s A contract is a legally binding agreement In order to create a valid contract, there must be An offer.
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Consideration Chapter.
CHAPTER 14 INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THIRD PERSONS DAVIDSON, KNOWLES & FORSYTHE Business Law: Cases and Principles.
Law of Contract. Contract Contract - All Agreement enforceable by Law is a Contract. Enforceable by Law – Aggrieved party can approach Court of Law.
Prepared by Michael Bozzo, Mohawk College Part 3 – The Law of Contract Chapter 8 – Requirement of Consideration © 2015 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 8-1.
IDEMNITY IDEMNITY GUARANTEES GUARANTEES BAILMENT BAILMENT PLEDGE PLEDGE AGENCY AGENCY THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 INDIAN PARTNERSHIP.
Fundamentals of Business Law Summarized Cases, 8 th Ed., and Excerpted Cases, 2 nd Ed. ROGER LeROY MILLER Institute for University Studies Arlington, Texas.
Chapter 9 Mutual Consideration. Consideration Main purpose of consideration is to distinguish between social promises and more serious transactions where.
1 FORMATION OF A CONTRACT (2) Objectives: 1. Consideration 2. Capacity 3. Intention to Create Legal Relations.
Chapter 12 Contract Discharge and Remedies for Breach.
LESSON 9-2 Quiz Review.
Fundamentals of Law (BL502) Fundamentals of Law Consideration.
CHAPTER Microsoft ® PowerPoint ® Presentation Prepared By Gail McKay, LLB, Thompson Rivers University © 2008 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., All Rights Reserved.
Requirements for a valid contract 1. Offer 2. Acceptance 3. Intention 4. Consideration All MUST be present for the contract to be valid Other requirements:
Understanding Business and Personal Law Consideration Section 8.1 Consideration Pre-Learning Question Why is consideration one of the six elements of a.
Chapter 8 Consideration. Gratuitous: Free Agreements Consideration : The exchange of benefits and detriments by the parties to an agreement. Benefit:
CHAPTER 8 The Nature and Origins of Contracts. Contract Principles Contract = legally enforceable promise or set of promises Agreement- Valid –Offer –Acceptance.
© 2007 West Legal Studies in Business, A Division of Thomson Learning Chapter 8 Contracts: Agreement and Consideration.
Overriding interests Lecture The general rule in registered immovable is that all interests and rights over a piece of land have to be written.
 CONTRACT Legally enforceable Between two or more parties  We commonly encounter contractual agreements as we carryout our daily routines and activities.
CONTINUATION SA REPORT NI TAHNEE. ELEMENTS OF CONTRACTS.
CHAPTER 3: FORMANTION OF A CONTRACT Emond Montgomery Publications 1.
A Bargain and an Exchange Consideration means that there must be bargaining that leads to an exchange between the parties. Consideration can be anything.
Bell Ringer What are the 6 parts of a contract? What does it mean to consider something? Why do parties exchange goods or services in a contract? What.
Ch. 6 How Contracts Come to an End 6-1 Transferring and Ending Contracts 6-1 Transferring and Ending Contracts.
Consideration Agreement Law
Consideration CHAPTER EIGHT. 8 | 2 Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Consideration A contract must be supported by consideration.
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 9 Fundamental Legal Principles.
General Principles of Contract Law
LAW FOR BUSINESS AND PERSONAL USE © SOUTH-WESTERN PUBLISHING Chapter 9Slide 1 Legal Value and Bargained-For Exchange Identify when there is legal value.
UNIVERSITY OF LUSAKA FACULTY OF LAW
Fundamental Legal Principles
Chapter 11 Consideration
Chapter 11 Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
Chapter 11 Consideration and Promissory Estoppel
CHAPTER 11 CONSIDERATION
Chapter 11 Consideration
CHAPTER 9 Test review.
Presentation transcript:

Alteration promises on the back of an original contract - enforceable? If A and B make a contract and then later make an alteration agreement relating to the original contract, either to pay more for the original contract or to accept less payment than is due under the original contract, is this alteration promise ‘enforceable’ in the courts? Is there consideration for it?

Promises to PAY MORE for the same work Key cases that we need to look at here are: Stilk v Myrick 1809 Hartley v Ponsonby 1857 and Williams v Roffey Brothers & Nicholls (contractors) Limited 1991

Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd 1991 It was held in Court of Appeal that the carpenters were entitled to the extra payments because they had provided consideration to the main contractors for their promise in that: the promise secured completion of the work on time so that the main contractors avoided the penalty clause, and, the main contractors avoided the need to employ another sub-contractor if the original ones decided to quit.

Judgment of Glidewell LJ His lordship held that the promise by the main contractors to pay extra to avoid a penalty and to get the work done by the original subcontractors gave them a PRACTICAL BENEFIT or avoided a DISBENEFIT to them and this was consideration – so long as economic duress or fraud was absent.

Judgment of Russel LJ ‘Consideration there must still be but in my judgment the courts nowadays should be more ready to find its existence so as to REFLECT the INTENTION OF THE PARTIES to the contract where the bargaining powers are not unequal and where the finding of consideration reflects the true intention of the parties’.

Judgment of Purchas LJ His lordship expresses the view that the Stilk v Myrick case was in large part decided for POLICY reasons – to protect masters of ships from being held to ransom by crews at sea. And he suggests that the lack of consideration argument was only really used because the duress was not available.

Commentary on Williams v Roffey Bros Limited 1991 In addition, the move away from the need for ‘legal’ consideration in Williams v Roffey Brothers Limited 1991 was NOT FOLLOWED in recent cases concerning promises to ACCEPT LESS payment than is due under an original contract. Remember that in Williams v Roffey, the consideration that was said to exist was of a ‘practical’ or ‘factual’ nature as opposed to really ‘legal’ in nature.

PROMISES TO ACCEPT ‘LESS PAYMENT’ THAN IS DUE UNDER AN ORIGINAL CONTRACT In PINNEL’S CASE it was held that if A made a promise with B to accept LESS PAYMENT for a debt and NOT TO SUE for the balance, then this agreement was UNENFORCEABLE unless B gave some extra consideration for it

A promise to accept less than is due is only supported by consideration where there is: payment in kind rather than in money, or payment in advance of the due date, or payment at a different location to the creditors advantage, or payment by a 3rd party accepted as full satisfaction, or a composition by creditors to accept less.

Foakes v Beer 1884 The House of Lords held that Mrs Beer could claim the interest from Dr Foakes because although in the agreement between her and Dr Foakes she had stated that she WOULD NOT take proceedings to enforce the debt, this agreement LACKED CONSIDERATION by Foakes – he had to pay the debt to her anyway as scheduled and so he gave no additional consideration for her to accept LESS than she was due, which was the DEBT PLUS INTEREST.

Re Selectmove Limited 1995 In this case, Williams v Roffey Brothers Limited was given a NARROW RATIO DECIDENDI– so that it could only apply to contracts for goods and services. In this way, the rule in Foakes v Beer was not challenged which would have been impossible anyway as it was a House of Lords case and Re Selectmove was only in the Court of Appeal – thus it would have been against the rules of precedent to attempt to overrule Foakes v Beer.

Promissory Estoppel ‘Where by words or conduct a person makes an unambiguous representation as to his future conduct, intending the representation to be RELIED on and to affect legal relations between the parties, and the representee alters his position in reliance on it, the representor will be unable to act inconsistently with the representation if by so doing the representee would be prejudiced’. McKendrick

A few early points on Promissory Estoppel 1. There is the potential for Promissory Estoppel (PE) to replace consideration 2. PE is just one strand of the broader equitable doctrine of estoppel 3. PE does not support a distinct cause of action 4. PE only protects one’s reliance interest not one’s expectation interest

6 key points for Promissory Estoppel 1. The promise must be clear 2. He who comes to equity must have clean hands 3. PE usually involves reliance and detriment 4. PE is usually only suspensory in nature 5. PE is a shield and not a sword 6. PE must be explicitly pleaded in court

7 key cases for Promissory Estoppel Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company 1877 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947 Combe v Combe 1951 Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd 1955 D & C Builders v Rees 1966 Williams v Roffery Brothers & Nicolls (contractors) Limited 1991 Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc 2001

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877 ‘It is the first principle upon which all Courts of Equity proceed, that if parties who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results … afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of negotiations which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced or will be kept in suspense or held in abeyance, the person who might otherwise have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable, having regard to the dealings which have thus taken place between the parties.’. Per Lord Cairns LC at 448.

High Trees case 1947 The key importance of the case comes from the obiter dicta remarks of Lord Denning. He said that HAD CLPT sued for the full rent between 1940 and 1945 it would have been estopped from doing so because of the promise not to demand full rent. He relied on the Hughes case.

Combe v Combe 1951 In this case and husband and wife got divorced. The husband then promised to pay his wife £100 a year as a permanent allowance. In reliance on this promise, the wife did not apply to the courts for maintenance. When the husband failed to make the payments, she sued him on the promise. She failed because Promissory Estoppel is a ‘shield and not a sword’.

D & C Builders v Rees 1966 In this case, although D & C builders agreed in writing to accept less than was owed to them they could still sue for the balance. This was argued on the basis of Pinnel’s case and Foakes v Beer and the defence of Promissory Estoppel was unsuccessful because Mrs Rees had not come to equity with clean hands - she had held them to ransom.

Per Dankwerts LJ His lordship stated: ‘Foakes v Beer, applying the decision in Pinnel’s case, settled definitively the rule of law that payment of a lesser sum than the amount of a debt due cannot be a satisfaction of the debt unless there is some benefit to the creditor added so that there is accord and satisfaction’. He felt that a cheque was basically the same as cash and so it was not extra consideration that could be used to avoid Foakes v Beer. Thus, the builders could sue for the balance due.

Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc 2001 Baird was contending that M&S was estopped from not ordering garments from them, that M&S should order garments from them. They failed because: firstly, Promissory estoppel is a shield and not a sword and secondly, that there was no clear unequivocal promise by M&S that they would continue to order garments from Baird.