[Simplyobsessed]

I have a couple of questions, if anyone can help me I'd very much appreciate it

- For Assault/Battery/s47, 20 and 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 what does it mean when people refer to the joint charging standards? Are there any good websites to revise this topic as it isn't in my textbook yet there is a very small paragraph on it in a hand out from my teacher.

- In Contract Law when talking about consideration, what does it mean to say that "consideration must move from the promisee"? All I understand about it is that it's related to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Any help would be appreciated

[chalks]

Originally Posted by Simplyobsessed

I have a couple of questions, if anyone can help me I'd very much appreciate it

...

- In Contract Law when talking about consideration, what does it mean to say that "consideration must move from the promisee"? All I understand about it is that it's related to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Any help would be appreciated

A person who is receiving a benefit under a contract is the "promisee". The person giving the benefit is the "promisor" (they are promising to do something).

The law says that if you are receiving a benefit from somebody (i.e. you are the promisee), you must also give something in exchange for there to be a valid contract. You must give "consideration". For example, if I offer you my car, you must offer me money (or something else) in exchange for there to be a valid contract. If you do, then consideration "has moved from the promisee" and we have a valid contract. In those circumstances, I can sue you if you fail to pay me the money for the car.

The law of privity of contract says that only the parties to a contract can sue on it.

It gets complicated when a contract purports to convey a benefit on a third party - they have not put forward any "consideration" for the deal. For example, I offer to give your brother my car if you pay me $1000. If you give me the money but I don't give the car to your brother, you could sue me. However, what about your brother? No consideration has moved from your brother - there is no privity of contract between he and I.

As you note, the CRTPA 99 may override that principle in certain circumstances. Look at the wording of the Act to see how it may apply.

[Simplyobsessed]

Originally Posted by chalks

A person who is receiving a benefit under a contract is the "promisee". The person giving the benefit is the "promisor" (they are promising to do something).

The law says that if you are receiving a benefit from somebody (i.e. you are the promisee), you must also give something in exchange for there to be a valid contract. You must give "consideration". For example, if I offer you my car, you must offer me money (or something else) in exchange for there to be a valid contract. If you do, then consideration "has moved from the promisee" and we have a valid contract. In those circumstances, I can sue you if you fail to pay me the money for the car.

The law of privity of contract says that only the parties to a contract can sue on it.

It gets complicated when a contract purports to convey a benefit on a third party - they have not put forward any "consideration" for the deal. For example, I offer to give your brother my car if you pay me $1000. If you give me the money but I don't give the car to your brother, you could sue me. However, what about your brother? No consideration has moved from your brother - there is no privity of contract between he and I.

As you note, the CRTPA 99 may override that principle in certain circumstances. Look at the wording of the Act to see how it may apply.

Thank You.. I understand it alot better now

[charliexo]

Originally Posted by Simplyobsessed

I have a couple of questions, if anyone can help me I'd very much appreciate it

- For Assault/Battery/s47, 20 and 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 what does it mean when people refer to the joint charging standards? Are there any good websites to revise this topic as it isn't in my textbook yet there is a very small paragraph on it in a hand out from my teacher.

The Joint Charging Standards are basically a list of injuries that go under battery, ABH and GBH. They are an agreement between the police and the crown prosecution service to make things more clear. I had trouble finding an online revision tool for it but basically it is as follows:

battery:
grazes or scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts, a black eye.

assault occasioning actual bodily harm:
loss or breaking of tooth, temporary loss of consciousness, extensive or muiltiple bruising, displaced broken nose, minor fractures, minor cuts requiring stitches, psychiatric injury - more than just fear, distress or panic.

GBH or wounding:
injury causing permanent disbility or disfigurement, broken limbs or bones, dislocated joints, injuries causing substantial loss of blood, injuries resulting in lengthy treatment.

You won't have to talk much about it, other than show that you understand it. For example, "According to the case of JCC v Eisenhower if a wound is a break in both the upper and lower dermis in the skin and would, therefore, constitute section 18/20. However, according to the Joint Charging Standards, set out between the police and the Crown Prosectution Service, a cut requiring stitches falls under section 47, so the defendant would be liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm."

I hope this helped