Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Narvasa, Puno, Vitug took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Factoran , G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v. Factoran or Minors Oposa , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the ...
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that in order for a legal contract to be binding consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
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 rendered to him earlier.
The pre-existing duty rule is an aspect of consideration within the law of contract. Originating in England the concept of consideration has been adopted by other jurisdictions, including the US. In essence, this rule declares that performance of a pre-existing duty does not amount to good consideration to support a valid contract; but there ...
Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act.
Failure of consideration is a highly technical area of law. Particular areas of controversy include: Whether the failure of the consideration must be 'total', [3] and the scope and meaning of such a requirement; Whether 'consideration' refers not only to bargained-for counter-performance by the defendant, but also a legal or factual state of ...
The cases discussed are, Coggs v Barnard (1703) on bailment; Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) on the doctrine of consideration; Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts
De Cicco v. Schweizer, [a] 117 N.E. 807 (N.Y. 1917), is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration.The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C.