Skip to main content

Case laws related to consideration in a contract

 Case laws related to consideration in the contract.


In the case of ,Kedarnath v. Gauri Mohamad

Case is based on future consideration.

If a promise is made for a charitable purpose , and the promise is not fulfilled the same is not enforceable as there is no consideration against the promise but in this case,

The party said that they need to construct a town hall and if the defendant could contribute anything as a charity to help the procedure of construction in future would be of great help and the defendant agreed to do the same. But, in future the defendant declined to pay any charity for the construction.The construction of town Hall started on the basis that the charity would be coming and the work started .So, the promise to pay subscription for construction becomes enforcible ,future consideration.


In the case of ,Doraswamy iyer v. A. Ayyar

It is a very similar case as Kedarnath v. Gowri Mohamad as both cases are based on future consideration but in this case subscription was invited when the construction was in progress.

When the promise was given by a party to pay the charity the construction was already in process.

It was held that the action was not induced by the promise to subscribe but was rather independent of it.

The difference between the above case and doraswamy case is that on the basis of future consideration of construction was started while in the second case that construction was already ongoing when the subscription was invited.

In the case of ,Chappel and Co Ltd v.Nestlé Company Limited

This case revolves around adequate consideration.

 Nestlé the defendant was giving out music records in exchange of wrappers, 

So, an issue was raised that how can a wrapper be considered as a consideration as wrappers are considered garbage.

Court said that the consideration needs to be there it does not need to be adequate.


Durga Prasad versus Baldeo 

This case talks about consideration at the desire of promisor.



Consideration moving from third person

In the case of, Chinnaya v. Ramayya

Facts of the case - A,old lady granted estate to her daughter the defendant, with the condition that The daughter must pay an annual payment of Rs.653 to A’s brother (old lady’s brother),the plaintiff .

On the same day the defendant made an agreement with the old lady’s brother (Plaintiff). She clearly stated that she would pay the annual payment as directed by her old mother to his uncle .

Later, the defendant refused to pay on the grounds that she is giving him the money but she’s not receiving any consideration against the money ,so ,there is no contract.

The court held that the consideration furnished by the old lady Constitutes sufficient consideration for the plaintiff to sue the defendant on her promise. Held, the brother was entitled to a decree for payment of the annual sum of money.

Conclusion
In a contract , consideration is an essential ingredient .
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more