CONSIDERATION According to Sec 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act of 1872.

Consideration is 'When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or, any other person, had done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or, to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise"

This could be put simply as ...Consideration is nothing but the price paid by one party for the promise of the other. It can be in the nature of a positive act or the forbearance of a certain act. It can be past, present or future. Thus, consideration forms an essential part of an agreement without which the agreement is void. This is because, in the absence of consideration, there is no legal obligation formed between the parties and, therefore, in such a scenario, they are not bound by the terms of the agreement RULES OF CONSIDERATION MUST MOVE AT THE DESIRE OF PROMISOR

This means that in any valid consideration, it must have to move at the desire of the promisor. The promisor is the party that gives the consideration and the promisee is the party that receive the consideration. Each time there is a consideration it is pertinent to note that the view of the promisor is of utmost importance since he is the one giving this consideration. The consideration must not be given in favour of one party, that is, the consideration must not be detrimental to the promisor. It is important to note that any consideration made out of sympathy or sentiment in most cases will not favour the promisor since it will not move at the desire of the promisor .

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Braithwait killed someone and then asked Lampleigh to get him a pardon. Lampleigh got the pardon and gave it to Braithwait who promised to pay Lampleigh £100 for his trouble.

but only if the City will build them a $120 million office tower on a site of Garlings' choice. Business Case Study #1: A Case of Towering Aspirations Garlings. Garlings is threatening to close its Hamilton operation after more than 100 years in operation and move it to another city unless City Council agrees to their proposal. big name law firm at a recent COW meeting presented Councillors with a challenging request. . we will not participate in any further discussions until all Councillors have cast their votes. Mitchell added the City needs to make up its mind on the matter immediately. he wants Garlings to have the right to sell the naming rights to the tower to any other party they deem appropriate. In his closing comments at the COW meeting. While Mr.It was held that although Lampleigh's consideration was past (he had got the pardon) Braithwaite's promise to pay could be linked to Braithwaite's earlier request and treated as one agreement. a local. Mitchell says that the tower will likely feature the firm's name on the top floor. Mitchell and then explain that while you appreciate and value Garlings presence in Hamilton. Let me add. unfortunately the City of Hamilton does not use taxpayers dollars to erect premises for any business. Any requests for business case numbers supporting our request will be met with silence. and turn the keys over to Garlings when it is complete. pay for the building of the office tower. Garlings senior partner Bob Mitchell has told Council the firm would consider staying in Hamilton. In addition. Garlings does not want to pay any property taxes for use of the building. "I think I have made our position abundantly clear. Mitchell adds that Garlings intends on keeping the naming rights revenue. you would (Please select only one from the following 3 choices): a) Listen intently to Mr. as a City Councillor. Garlings employs about 100 people and has gross annual billings of between $15-20 million. Garlings wants the City to assemble the land. otherwise he will be forced to move the firm elsewhere. Garlings has offered to pay a relatively small amount of rent. I thank you for your time. but it wants to be able to rent the rest of the office tower to paying tenants and to keep all rent revenues for a minimum of 10 years. so it could be implied at the time of the request that Lampleigh would be paid. no matter whose name appears on the building." Faced with this information. Mr.

. knowing this is only a COW meeting and you'll be able to change your vote at the next official Council meeting. c) Leave the meeting before the vote is called and go to a concert in Toronto and send emails to local reporters saying how people in Toronto are laughing at Hamilton for not considering Garlings' request. being sure to add that the Garling's name is associated with Hamilton all around the world.b) Vote to support Garlings' request.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful