Consideration must move from the promise - law of contract, Business Law and Ethics

Consideration must move from the promise - Law of Contract

Conversely the rule that "consideration must move from the promisee" means such only a person who has personally given consideration to a promise can sue for breach to the promise.  Well a person who has not given consideration about a promise cannot sue the promisor with the simple reason such he cannot expect to get something for nothing. Hence the common law regards a contract like a bargain between the parties to a commercial transaction thus each of whom has bought the promise to the other with his own promise or like act. 

Actually this is illustrated through the case of Dunlop v Selfridge in whereas the appellants were motor tyre manufacturers and sold tyres to Messrs Dew & Co. That who were motor accessory dealers.  Hence under the terms of the contract Dew & Co. agreed not to sell the tyres below the Dunlop's list prices, and as the Dunlop's agents, to obtain from other retailers a related undertaking.  Well in return for this undertaking Dew & Co. were to obtain discounts, some of that they could pass on to retailers who bought tyres.  But Selfridge & Co. accepted two orders from customers to Dunlop covers at a lower price.  Whether they obtained the covers through Dew & Co. and signed an agreement just not to sell or offer the tyres below list price. 

Further it was further agreed that by £5 per tyre so sold should be paid to Dunlop through way of liquidated damages.  Through Selfridge's supplied one of the two tyres ordered below list price.  Though they did not actually supply the other, although informed the customer such they could only supply it at list price.  Well the appellants claimed an injunction and damages against the respondents to breach of the agreement completed with Dew & Co., claiming such Dew & Co. were their agents in the matter. Actually it was held that there was no contract made between the parties.  Thus Dunlop could not enforce the contract made between the respondents and Dew & Co. since they had not supplied the consideration.  Smooth if Dunlop were undisclosed principals, such there was no consideration moving between them and the respondents.  Moreover The discount received through Selfridge was part of that given through Dunlop to Dew & Co. since Dew & Co. were not bound to confer any part of their discount for retailers the discount received through Selfridge operated only like consideration between themselves and Dew & Co. and could not be claimed through Dunlop as consideration to support a promise not for sell below list price.

Posted Date: 1/22/2013 3:00:28 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Consideration must move from the promise - law of contract, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Consideration must move from the promise - law of contract, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Consideration must move from the promise - law of contract Discussions

Write discussion on Consideration must move from the promise - law of contract
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
Proceedings at Meetings: (a)Each item of business comprised in the notice should be taken separately, discussed and put to the vote.  Members may propose ammendments to the re

Personal rights invaded:                    A shareholder may sue to protect from invasion their own individual rights as members.  This is illustrated by Pender v Lushington

Types oF Goods - Sales of Goods Further the Act classifies goods into: like; (i) Specific Goods Whether specific goods are "goods" like are acknowledged and agreed on

Political and Education function of Chief Justice Political Function Moreover the chief justice administers the presidential oath for the person who is elected like pre

State Article 29 of international law Article 29 states that a member of a diplomatic mission enjoys immunity from arrest or prosecution.

When is an employer vicariously liable? An employer is vicariously liable when: a. When Employer authorised. b. When unauthorised procedure utilized when executing an aut

DUTIES OF AUDITORS: The duties of auditors are explained in the following cases. 1. RE: KINGSTON COTTON MILL CO. (1896)(CHANCERY) For some years before a company was wou

Define the term - authoritative government decision We can sum up by way of saying that the intent to implement a policy is not the same thing as a real policy. Failure to impl

APPOINTMENT BY DIRECTORS: The company first auditors of may be appointed through the directors at any time before the first annual general meeting, and auditors so appointed s

Explain the Case Clipperton Island In Clipperton Island Case , an award was made in the arbitration which resolved a dispute between France and Mexico, in 1887, on the subjec