Essays /
Business Law Assignment help... [10]
Hi Ms Sarah, can u comment on this for me?
Is it correct to say that performance of an existing duty will never amount to good consideration?
Contracts are commonly governed and enforced by the laws in the circumstances where the agreement made, argues FindLaw (2008), and a business contract is one of the most common legal transactions that you will be involved in when on the trot on a business. For example, most bills of sale, purchase orders, employment agreements, and other common business transactions are legally enforceable contracts. Moreover, it also appointed that having an understanding of contract law is a key to creating sound business agreements that will be legally enforceable in the event that a dispute arises. In the eyes of the law, a contract arises when there is an offer, acceptance of that offer, and sufficient consideration to make the contact valid. Consideration is a legal term given to the bargained for exchange between the parties to the contract which is something of some value passing from one party to the other (SG&B, 2007). Consideration is essential to the validity of any contract other than one made by deed. Without consideration an agreement not made by deed is not binding; it is a naked agreement, governed by the right of action does not arise out of a naked agreement (Oxford University Press, 2006). Thus, each party to the contract will gain some benefit from the agreement, and will incur some obligation in exchange for that benefit.
Good consideration which furnish with natural love and affection or a moral duty is not enough to render a promise enforceable.
ProZ.com states:
"The doctrine of consideration is governed by four major principles which are a valuable consideration is required (i.e. the act, forbearance, or promise must have some economic value), consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient, consideration must move from the promise and consideration may be executed but must not be past..."
It is true that the general rule is that if one already has an existing legal duty to do something, performance of that pre-existing duty, or a promise to perform it, cannot amount to good consideration. For example, Mathew agreed to received £100 as his daily salary basis to be Paul Smith driver to travel to Highbury, London but when he drive in the half way he felt that the destination is very far to go and he intend to ask for higher wages from Paul. Paul doesn't know how to drive and agreed to pay at that time but last of all he did not pay. This situation is related to the actual case of Stilk v Myrick in 1890. According to Poole (1992), he emphasised that the judgment in the case of Stilk v Myrick is still considered stout despite the numerous attempts to find ways around it. The background of this case is a team of seven sailors agreed to crew a ship from London to the Baltic and back and there was two sailors deserted in the Baltic while the remaining nine sailors refused to sail, and pressed the captain for higher wages. The Captain agreed at the time but ultimately refused to make any payment as he promised them on the trip. The sailors attempted to sue the captain but finally lost. It was due to they didn't make any contract with the captain when they agreed to work on and it can be argued that the captain's offer was not supported by any consideration on the part of the sailors. Therefore, the sailors were only doing what they had agreed to do along and it can be viewed as a decision to make the point of public policy and they cannot force the other party to offer better terms by placing the captain economic stress. In a sense that the doctrine of consideration is governed by existing contractual duty means if someone promises to do something they are already bound to do under a contract, which is not amount to good consideration. This case should be contrasted with Hartley v Ponsonby 1857; it allowed the captain and crew to consider the original contract discharged. The offer of higher wages was thus seen as a new agreement.
There was another case to sustain that performance of an existing duty will amount to a good consideration which is Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd (1990). This highly contentious case is taken to demonstrate that the performance of an existing contractual obligation can be taken as consideration in a new agreement. It does present a benefit to the party whose duties are already fulfilled to have the other party offer to do something he has to do anyway in traditional view. Roffey at al. were a firm of builders contracted to renovate a block of flats. Their own contract contained a penalty clause for late completion, so it was in their interests to finish the work on time. Part of this work they sub-contracted to Williams. As work progressed, Williams fell behind schedule because, they claimed, they had not set an adequate price for the work. They negotiated a new deal with Roffey, which an additional sum was to be paid on the completion of each building. When the next building was complete, Roffey refused to pay. In defense, Roffey claimed that the new agreement with Williams was void, as there was no sufficient consideration from Williams. The Court considered the case of Stilk v Myrick and decided that it was robust and should stand: an agreement cannot be enforced without consideration. However, the Court held that in this case there was consideration: the new agreement conferred additional `practical benefit' on Roffey; in particular an early completion would allow them to avoid the exercise of the penalty clause. Although this case could be seen as overturning the traditional narrow view of consideration, in practice it has not been widely followed in subsequent cases.
Good consideration which furnish with natural love and affection or a moral duty is not enough to render a promise enforceable. As with practically all rules of law, however, there are exceptions to the existing duty rule. One is unforeseen difficulties. This often arises with construction contracts. For example, a contractor enters into a contract to build a house, but after he begins work, he discovers that instead of ordinary soil on the site, the ground underneath is solid granite. This will greatly increase the contractor's costs, so he tells the property owner he needs to be paid twice as much and the owner agrees. This oral contract would not be enforceable if the contractor was just building the house as he had already agreed to in the original contract. However, because of the unforeseen difficulties involved with building on granite, the owner's promise to pay more is enforceable in court; that is, if the owner tries to avoid paying the extra amount, and the contractor sues him, the court will enforce that promise to pay more, even though there was no additional consideration by the contractor. A second exception is rescission. If the contractor has not yet performed his part of the bargain (i.e., the contract is "executory" rather than "executed"), the two parties can agree to rescind their original contract and make a new contract. The pre-existing duty is then discharged by the rescission of the old contract, and a new duty is created in the new contract.