Presented By : Goh Kay Reong

Qn 1a) : Consideration
Should Sham Pay TPL The Surcharge?

What makes a contract? The Problem: Consideration

A contract is an agreement that gives rise to obligations RULE 1 RULE 2
which are binding and enforceable by law.
Consideration must move Consideration need
Offer Consideration from promisee (TPL) but need not be adequate but
Acceptance Intention not move to promisor (Sham) must be sufficient

Was Consideration Sufficient?

Sufficient Insufficient
● Goods ● Vague or Insubstantial
● Money, Services ● Moral Obligation
● Forbearance to sue ● Past Consideration
● Performance of existing contractual ● Performance of existing contractual duty to Promisor
duty to third party ● Performance of existing public duty
● Partial payment of debt
Presented By :
Ng Jun Long
 Per Professor Claire’s remarks.
Our team realized that for cases in
Sharon Global V LG International
Williams V Roffrey Bros

Qn 1a) Both promisee were facing genuine financial

Post Presentation hardships and had severely underquoted the cost
needed. Therefore, the promisor had genuine doubt
Review that without the fresh promise, the original
agreements would not have been completed.

Hence, with this considered. Our team still believes

that TPL should be awarded the additional
surcharge.
No automatic right to
terminate a contract Kenny wants to terminate the contract
Presented by: Reference from RDC
Situations in which a contract can be terminated
Shaun Concrete vs Sato Kogyo

Where the contract specifically provides for Where the contract does not specifically
the right to terminate provides for the right to terminate
No clause present in Kenny and
Chandra’s contract
Hong Kong Fir
Condition - Warranty Approach
Approach
Where the guilty party
Apply Condition-Warranty Approach First
renounces contract
Is term a condition?

Yes No
Apply Hong Kong Fir Approach - Are consequences serious?
Right to terminate & claim damages

Serious Trivial - can only claim damages

 Effect of Termination > Contracting parties are discharged from all future contractual
obligations from the time of termination

Refuse payment for balance of car rental Claim refund for $100 deposit
Can Kenny refuse to pay? Not a future obligation (Obligation already fulfilled)
Is the payment a
future obligation?
Is Chandra entitled to claim?
When can monies paid be recovered?

When is payment claimable? There must be a total failure of consideration

General Rule (“Cutter v Powell”) > If a contract is to be
discharged by performance parties must perform Plaintiff (Kenny) must not have enjoyed
obligations precisely and fully
any benefit from the contract
Exceptions Does not allow payment
- De Minimis Rule to be claimed if precise What are the benefits in the contract?
(Microscopic deviation) performance of the
- Divisible Contracts obligation was not done
- Substantial Performance Did Kenny enjoy any of such
- Prevented Performance benefits?
- Partial Performance Were the obligations
(Accepted by promisee) performed by Chandra? Presented by: Ryan
 Q4(b) - Frustration
CASE
GENERAL RULE Frustration Matter

Frustration Elements
● Occurence of Supervening event
● Neither parties responsible
● After contract formation
● Before completion of contract
Destruction of Subject Matter - Taylor v
Caldwell
When was pink limousine destroyed?

Contract automatically discharged After contract formation & before 14 Feb 12pm

Section 2(2) Section 2(2) Remaining car

Frustration Monies paid $100 Monies payable rental fee not
Contracts prior to the deposit but yet to be paid required to
discharge is claimable ceases to be pay
Act recoverable payable
Presentor: Tida