Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.
Offer, acceptance and consideration
The contract made by Northampton Town FC (NTFC) for, Jack to lay the grass for the match giving Jack £10,000 which was accepted. NTFC promised to pay extra £2,000 to complete the job in time. Jack accepted this by completing the job just in time. In Stilk V Myrick 1809 claimants sued the defendant for not getting the two men as they didn’t continue the voyage. It was held that the defendant was not guilty as the men promised their duties for £5 a month. Therefore NTFC doesn’t need to pay Jack £2,000 going by this case.
As NTFC promises to pay Jack extra £2,000, which he then did. Seen in Nicolen Ltd v Simmonds 1953. Lord Denning identified if a worded contract was made and then was said it was meaningless then anyone trying to get out of liability would use this excuse. But it was held that as there was trade between both companies several times then conditions were accepted and that the defendant breached his contract. NTFC would have to pay Jack as it shows the promises made in future acts of Jack.
Hartley V Ponsoby 1957 shows the claimant who went over the existing obligation of the original contract, then a new consideration can be made. This current case has amended the Stilk V Myrick case. No extra consideration should be taken into account, Jack did the job on his own, he didn’t rely on other men to help him.
In Williams V Roffey Bros Ltd 1990 the situation is similar to NTFC and Jack’s. As Williams promised to pay the claimant £575 extra per flat when completed. But the defendant didn’t pay and therefore breached his contract and was liable to pay. NTFC should pay Jack the extra money, which was agreed because during the existing contract it was changed by giving the money for good consideration.
“ Executory consideration may thus be described as an exchange of promises; executed consideration consists of the exchange of a promise for an act”  . NTFC responds by giving an executory consideration to Jack, which is promises that is made for the future acts.
I advise NTFC to pay Jack the good consideration of £2,000 promised. As duties were imposed under an existing contract. Taking the executory consideration rule, they have breached their contract and would be liable since a promise was made by the offeror to the offeree. Cases, which show NTFC breach their contract, are Nicolen Ltd v Simmonds and Williams V Roffey Bros Ltd. As the newest law shows consideration has to be paid.
NTFC promised to pay the police £3,000. The police accepted this and promised to provide police officers for the match a duty arose by law. Collins V Godefroy 1831 shows how general law of the land preforms a duty as it shows when a party is required to do an act by law, so there is no consideration.
The police have to provide an existing duty. Normally give 3 officers obliged by the law for each match to NTFC. The police provided NTFC with twenty officers and performed their duty. Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council 1925 shows how the defendant was held to pay the amount to the officers as the defendant agreed to pay the officers.
Get help with your essay today, from our professional law essay writers!
Qualified writers in the subject of law are ready and waiting to help you with your studies.
Get help with your essay today
from our professional essay writers!
Visit parallelewelten.info to see how we can help you!
Harris V Sheffeild United 1986 held how the police went over their contractual duty with the club and therefore the defendant was held liable. The police showed that they have gone above their contractual duty with NTFC and should be paid.
I would advise NTFC to pay the £3000 to the police. The police have shown good consideration so NTFC should pay. Unless they have breached their contract and will be liable to pay the wages of the officers agreed. Taking into consideration the cases applied above.
When NTFC and Tom agreed the contract for extra training the cost was £1,000 but later was agreed after the charge would be £500 for each season for training.
The Pinnel’s Case 1602 is where the House of Lords held; “Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater sum cannot be any satisfaction for the whole”  . NTFC cannot pay Tom £500 what was agreed after agreeing to £1,000 first in the contract. As the Pinnel’s case shows that no matter what the agreed amount was after it doesn’t show the amount agreed and doesn’t compensate the claimant.
Promissory estoppel should be taken into consideration. “Promissory estoppel suggest that the important factor is not the promise made, but the fact of reliance on it”  , seen in High Trees Case (1947). It was held that the claimant would get the full rent from the flats when sublet in the future. It was the claimant’s discursions for him to ask for less money. If he still demanded for more then there was a possibility for them to get something as the defendant wouldn’t be able to afford the rent. Judge Denning said, “ By accepting the reduced rent for the wartime period, they lost their right to claim for arrears of rent, rather than simply suspending it until the tenants could afford to pay”  . The High Trees Case shows NTFC wouldn’t have to pay Tom. As the amount agreed for the end of the season should still be at £500 and not £1,000 as it’s unfair for the promisor to go back on their promise.
In Combe V Combe 1951 it was held that promissory estoppel wouldn’t apply as cause of action but only for defence. None of the four requirements applied for promissory estoppel. Also there was no consideration for the promises.
In Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd V Tungsten Electric Co LTD 1955
( TMM v TECo) was held by not allowing the claimant to sue the defendant as they both made a binding contract. The claimant could sue for in the future losses but not the past as binding contract was made.
I would advise NTFC not to pay £1,000 but only pay £500 agreed as taking into consideration of the High Trees Case and also the ( TMM v TECo). If NTFC decides to train in Tom’s fields next season then they would have to pay £1,000 but for the current season they only have to pay £500 as Tom can only sue NTFC for the future as the contract is made.
To concluded NTFC should pay Jack extra £2,000, pay the police £3,000 and pay Tom £500.
Word Count 1,100
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.