Practice questions on consideration and estoppel.
In English Contract Law, a contract is based on an exchange of promises—and in order for a promise to be enforceable, it must hold consideration. Consideration is thus something of value that is given by both parties to a contract that induces them into the agreement to exchange mutual performance.
Question 7. A misrepresentation is: an untrue statement of fact or possibly law made by one party to the contract to the other party to the contract that is intended to, and does, induce the other party to enter into the contract. Question 8. Candidates were asked to explain the practical implications of frustration of contract.
Contract Law. A contract is a legally binding or valid agreement between two parties. A contract is an agreement which will be enforced be the law.. The question of capacity to make the contract often arises only after the contract is in place. People with disabilities and their advocates will find some protection in the rule that a contract.
Question 2 A contract in restraint of trade is one which restricts a person’s right to exercise his trade or carry on his business. Such contracts are found in a wide range of situations including employment contracts, contracts for the sale of businesses, solus agreements, and publishing contracts.
What is the doctrine of consideration Essay Sample. In order for an agreement to become a legally binding contract, the common law position is that there must either be a formalised deed or some form of consideration between the parties.
Reciprocity of consideration is fundamental to contract law. The exchange of consideration creates a benefit and a burden for each party entering into a contract. The consideration which is the benefit of the contract for one party (say, receiving money) is the burden of the other (say, paying money).
Contract law as bargain is to be said as before the promisee’s act can be regarded as consideration, it must be established that the act is given at the request of the promisor and in reliance upon the promisor’s promise: Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954); Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1955); Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893).