Approach To Contractual Variation

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
Doctrine of Consideration
As per the Lush J in Currie v. Misa (1875)
1/13/2020
Student Credentials

Corporate Law 1
Doctrine of Consideration
Sir Frederick Pollock characterized consideration as a demonstration or abstinence of one
contractual party, or the one that promises to do so thereof, which is the cost for which the
guarantee or the promise itself of another is purchased, and the guarantee therefore given for
the said amount is enforceable. A consideration is something that is very vital in all kinds of
contracts, and just with its presence will a contract be considered enforceable legally. In this
discussion the main focus is going to be based upon the Doctrine of Consideration and the
evolving times in which it should be amended to so as to make it much more accessible and
functional.
The main aspect regarding the doctrine of consideration includes, the consideration provided
or offered should be a sufficient amount instead of being an adequate one. The amount of
consideration which the promisee provides or gives does not need to be equivalent to the
amount of the said promise according to which the promisor shall be provided with the value.
The court will at any cost not look into the amounts of the promises that have been talked
about or exchanged between the parties. In any case, in view of this standard, an issue
emerges as there might be a contention in the degree of consideration. On account of
Chappell and Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, it was held by The House of Lords that three negligible
chocolate bar wrappers were to be referred as a piece of consideration despite the fact that
they were unimportant to Nestle1. Nonetheless, on account of Stilk v Myrick, the verdict of
the court was that there was inadequate amount of consideration for the staff in question in
order to guarantee any additional wages since they completed their tasks in accordance with
the tasks they were bound to complete as per the contract, regardless of the way that they
1 E- Lawresources, 'Chappel V Nestle' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2019) <http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Chappel-v-Nestle.php> accessed 15 January 2020.

Corporate Law 2
needed to trudge considerably harder when two individual mariners betrayed2. As what can
be concluded in the two above cases, the consideration doctrine had made a disparity in what
is viewed as adequate and deficient consideration3. In the given cases, the three chocolate bar
wrappers were esteemed to be considerably more adequate than the additional hours and
exertion the mariners needed to place in during their journey, which is unquestionably much
more affordable in every sense. In this manner, the consideration doctrine is by all accounts
antiquated and excess.
While in so many years, the framework of English law has battled to deliver an unmistakable
meaning for the legally binding component of consideration. While, towards the finish of the
nineteenth century, the instance of Currie v. Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 tagged along and
enabled Lush J to characterize consideration in the below mentioned way:
“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either of some right, interest,
profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment loss or
responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other”4.
The case of Currie v. Misa fundamentally affirmed the "advantage picked up and
disadvantage endured" standard in consideration and in this issue the point of the precedent
stays critical in the law of contract right up until the present time5.
Investigating the idea of thought in contract law, for instance of what this implies, or would a
person anticipate that an individual should come around to one’s home and clean the house’s
windows needlessly? Additionally, the window cleaner neglected or did not clean on his own
2 Robert E. Forbes, Contracts (Supplementary Cases): 2019-20 (Osgoode Course
Casebooks 2019) <https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1110&context=casebooks> accessed 15 January 2020.
3 Marcus Roberts, 'Foakes V Beer: Bloodied, Bowed, But Still Binding Authority?' (2018)
29 King's Law Journal.
4 Edmund H. Bennett, 'Is Mere Gain To A Promisor A Good Consideration For His Promise?'
(2019) 10 Harvard Law Review.
5 Carron-Ann Russell, OPINION WRITING AND DRAFTING IN CONTRACT LAW (Cavendish
Publishing Limited 2012).