Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any points to incorporate are welcome.
    Any advice or help would be much appreciated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MariaAlba)
    Hello everybody. I have a coursework to submit in January and really stuck on the double liability issue. Case example: Julia's dog goes missing on Monday. She telephones John, the owner of "Wefindanydog Ltd". John says, "Iwill find your dog for £150." Julia agrees. Whilst Julian and her brother, Nick, are looking for their dog, they bump into John. Nick, who is keen to help, says to John, "I'll give you £200 of my own if you find the dog". After 10 minutes of looking, John find the dog and returns him to Julia. Both Julia and Nick refuse to pay John, telling him that he cannot possible expect to be paid for so little effort.

    I think the authority to support the case would be Williams and Roffey - performance of an existing contractual obligation. Lord Glidwell's criteria are met in this case. But I am not sure if I am right.

    Any points to incorporate are welcome.
    Any advice or help would be much appreciated.
    This is not williams v roffey
    This is consideration to a third party which is pau on case.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MariaAlba)
    Hello everybody. I have a coursework to submit in January and really stuck on the double liability issue. Case example: Julia's dog goes missing on Monday. She telephones John, the owner of "Wefindanydog Ltd". John says, "Iwill find your dog for £150." Julia agrees. Whilst Julian and her brother, Nick, are looking for their dog, they bump into John. Nick, who is keen to help, says to John, "I'll give you £200 of my own if you find the dog". After 10 minutes of looking, John find the dog and returns him to Julia. Both Julia and Nick refuse to pay John, telling him that he cannot possible expect to be paid for so little effort.

    I think the authority to support the case would be Williams and Roffey - performance of an existing contractual obligation. Lord Glidwell's criteria are met in this case. But I am not sure if I am right.

    Any points to incorporate are welcome.
    Any advice or help would be much appreciated.
    The poster above is right that this is about undertaking an obligation to a third party for the same responsibility--which is good consideration. Williams v Roffey isn't in point here. (Williams deals with increased payment for services, practical benefit, and raises the question of whether economic duress was present.) I'm pretty sure Pao is not a 3p case, and deals with a second promise to the promisor/past consideration. Take a look at Shadwell v Shadwell.

    You might want to consider whether Nick has a defence that the statement was a mere puff/not intended to create legal relations--though to me this seems a fairly thin argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    The poster above is right that this is about undertaking an obligation to a third party for the same responsibility--which is good consideration. Williams v Roffey isn't in point here. (Williams deals with increased payment for services, practical benefit, and raises the question of whether economic duress was present.) I'm pretty sure Pao is not a 3p case, and deals with a second promise to the promisor/past consideration. Take a look at Shadwell v Shadwell.

    You might want to consider whether Nick has a defence that the statement was a mere puff/not intended to create legal relations--though to me this seems a fairly thin argument.
    Pau on is to do with third party consideration. The same consideration of selling shares was made with a company as well as the directors
    I cant remember the entire facts but a company was buying/sellong shares for a building that was being built and the party ending up with the shares had terms in this contract meaning that the party who originally owned the shares would garuntee their value
    The party with the shares realised that this meant they wouldnt actually have any security over if the price rose as the buy back was to garuntee the value and so being paid in shares was redundant so they made the directors of the company who made the promise to garuntee to make a further promise.
    The consideration in this case from one party was the same to both parties but the court held that this was good. Whilst the directors were the company owners they counted as a third part and so provided consideration based on the same consideration. In effect they werent gaining anything and I was never quite sure why this was a good contract. It seemed a little strange to me. This is how it was explained to

    Sorry it is slightly vague. I think it also states the exceptions to past cosideration ( I may be worng about this part)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmat)
    Pau on is to do with third party consideration. The same consideration of selling shares was made with a company as well as the directors
    I cant remember the entire facts but a company was buying/sellong shares for a building that was being built and the party ending up with the shares had terms in this contract meaning that the party who originally owned the shares would garuntee their value
    The party with the shares realised that this meant they wouldnt actually have any security over if the price rose as the buy back was to garuntee the value and so being paid in shares was redundant so they made the directors of the company who made the promise to garuntee to make a further promise.
    The consideration in this case from one party was the same to both parties but the court held that this was good. Whilst the directors were the company owners they counted as a third part and so provided consideration based on the same consideration. In effect they werent gaining anything and I was never quite sure why this was a good contract. It seemed a little strange to me. This is how it was explained to

    Sorry it is slightly vague. I think it also states the exceptions to past cosideration ( I may be worng about this part)
    You're right on the 3p consideration point--though they cite the Eurymedon and Scotson v Pegg to support, and these cases might be more directly in point. The promise was to indemnify the defendants against a drop in price--the plaintiffs incurred a second obligation to a separate party.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MariaAlba)
    Thank you so much guys for your answers. But I'm still confused. To start off it is not clear for me if Julia's offer is a unilateral offer or is a bilietar contract between them as it looks like an executory consideration. As finding the dog will happen in future.

    In total there are two contracts: 1st between Julia and John and 2nd between Julia and Nick.

    Any advice would be very helpful. Thanks
    The contracts are between Julia and John, and Nick and John. The contract with Julia is a bilateral contract for the provision of a service--Julia and exchanged a promise to pay John for a promise that John would find the dog. Nick and John have a unilateral contract--Nick promises a reward to John but John doesn't thereby take on an additional obligation to Nick to find the dog, and based on the wording he wouldn't have a cause of action for boc if John couldn't find the dog.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    You're right on the 3p consideration point--though they cite the Eurymedon and Scotson v Pegg to support, and these cases might be more directly in point. The promise was to indemnify the defendants against a drop in price--the plaintiffs incurred a second obligation to a separate party.
    I wasn't disagreeing with the cases you mentioned but I think pau on is just as close as john is offering the same consideration for two seperate contracts which is exactly what happened in the pau on case but really does not make a difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I forgot to mention the issue of intention to create legal realtionship between John and Nick.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Unless I'm missing something, the John/Nick situation is NOT a unilateral Carlill situation. There are obligations going both ways: John to find the dog and Nick to pay the money. A Carlill-style contract is unilateral because the obligation only goes one way (the person using the smoke-ball did not have an obligation to do anything, only Carlill had an obligation to pay-out if someone accepted the offer).

    Think about how the obligation is construed in this second contract. Is the obligation to find the dog in favour of Julia (in which case Nick is contracting for the benefit of a third party and the obligation to find the job doesn't actually change making this a Williams v Roffey situation) or is it in favour of Nick?

    It is also at least conceivable that the £200 is supposed to be backing-up the £150 rather than an additional obligation - i.e. a guarantee (with an extra £50 bolted on, admittedly) - which would mean that the maximum John could claim is £200 and not £350.

    These aren't massive issues but do think very very carefully about how particular words and courses of events might be construed - don't jump to conclusions if you can possibly help it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Unless I'm missing something, the John/Nick situation is NOT a unilateral Carlill situation. There are obligations going both ways: John to find the dog and Nick to pay the money. A Carlill-style contract is unilateral because the obligation only goes one way (the person using the smoke-ball did not have an obligation to do anything, only Carlill had an obligation to pay-out if someone accepted the offer).

    Think about how the obligation is construed in this second contract. Is the obligation to find the dog in favour of Julia (in which case Nick is contracting for the benefit of a third party and the obligation to find the job doesn't actually change making this a Williams v Roffey situation) or is it in favour of Nick?

    It is also at least conceivable that the £200 is supposed to be backing-up the £150 rather than an additional obligation - i.e. a guarantee (with an extra £50 bolted on, admittedly) - which would mean that the maximum John could claim is £200 and not £350.

    These aren't massive issues but do think very very carefully about how particular words and courses of events might be construed - don't jump to conclusions if you can possibly help it.
    Interesting point--I'm inclined to think "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of either interpretation. Whether it's bilateral or unilateral, John has found the dog--I think the question would be more important if John did not find the dog, in which case the question of whether he'd breached his contract with Nick would arise.

    Your point about the guarantee is one I hadn't though of, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Unless I'm missing something, the John/Nick situation is NOT a unilateral Carlill situation. There are obligations going both ways: John to find the dog and Nick to pay the money. A Carlill-style contract is unilateral because the obligation only goes one way (the person using the smoke-ball did not have an obligation to do anything, only Carlill had an obligation to pay-out if someone accepted the offer).

    Think about how the obligation is construed in this second contract. Is the obligation to find the dog in favour of Julia (in which case Nick is contracting for the benefit of a third party and the obligation to find the job doesn't actually change making this a Williams v Roffey situation) or is it in favour of Nick?

    It is also at least conceivable that the £200 is supposed to be backing-up the £150 rather than an additional obligation - i.e. a guarantee (with an extra £50 bolted on, admittedly) - which would mean that the maximum John could claim is £200 and not £350.

    These aren't massive issues but do think very very carefully about how particular words and courses of events might be construed - don't jump to conclusions if you can possibly help it.
    Thanks for your answer. It's really appreciated.

    Can I sugest that there is a contract between Julia and John and she is liable to John. What about John and Nick, it could be argued that there is no intention to create legal relation. But to support the case I should bring Williams and Roffey. Also should I mention that finding the missing dogs it his business. Which authorities would you suggest to support the case.

    Thanks a lot in advance
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Interesting point--I'm inclined to think "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of either interpretation. Whether it's bilateral or unilateral, John has found the dog--I think the question would be more important if John did not find the dog, in which case the question of whether he'd breached his contract with Nick would arise.

    Your point about the guarantee is one I hadn't though of, though.


    Thanks anyway guys, you are all so helpful!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MariaAlba)
    Thanks for your answer. It's really appreciated.

    Can I sugest that there is a contract between Julia and John and she is liable to John. What about John and Nick, it could be argued that there is no intention to create legal relation. But to support the case I should bring Williams and Roffey. Also should I mention that finding the missing dogs it his business. Which authorities would you suggest to support the case.

    Thanks a lot in advance
    What is your fascination with Williams v Roffey. It is not that case. It is not applicable as has already been said by two of us.. Do you understand Williams v Roffey? It is to do with a renegotiated contract of a service in return for pay. There is no such context here as there is no renegotation between any party here

    I dont see how Nick shows any less intention that Julia when contracting with John.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    Interesting point--I'm inclined to think "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of either interpretation. Whether it's bilateral or unilateral, John has found the dog--I think the question would be more important if John did not find the dog, in which case the question of whether he'd breached his contract with Nick would arise.

    Your point about the guarantee is one I hadn't though of, though.
    You are totally right, I was tired and didn't think it through (hence the "unless I'm missing something comment - I was!). A "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of being a unilateral contract although the offer is to a specific person rather than the world at large as in Carlill.

    (Original post by mariaalba)
    Can I sugest that there is a contract between Julia and John and she is liable to John. What about John and Nick, it could be argued that there is no intention to create legal relation. But to support the case I should bring Williams and Roffey. Also should I mention that finding the missing dogs it his business. Which authorities would you suggest to support the case.
    I suppose its possible that there is a contract between Julia and John, but I don't think there is anything in the facts of the question that suggests such a contract and I don't see why there would be one. I think to talk about such a contract is borderline making-up-facts so personally I would not include it.

    You need to think about intent but it does look like there is intent especially as concerns Julia... John is a stranger running a business and Julia has rung him up offering money, looks like that is intent to me... not an issue I would consider in any depth. It is worth mentioning though that John is running a business therefore it is presumed that there is intent to create L.R. (I forget the authority for this).

    No you should not bring in Williams v Roffey.

    Let's look at what WvR says. The principle coming out of WvR is:
    1) Where you have a contractual variation
    2) Where someone agrees to pay more for what they are already legally entitled (an "increasing pact")
    3) A practical benefit can constitute consideration

    It does NOT lay down the general need for consideration, it does NOT cover anything but variations of existing contracts, it does NOT cover a situation where someone agrees to accept less money than what they are entitled to for performing a contract (a "decreasing pact") (there is some debate about whether this is right, and notwithstanding High Court comments to the contrary that is definitely the current legal position after Re Selectmove) and I don't think it says anything about intent to create legal relations.

    Have done very detailed posts on consideration in the past that might help you if you do a search for them
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    You are totally right, I was tired and didn't think it through (hence the "unless I'm missing something comment - I was!). A "I will give you 200 if you find the dog" is capable of being a unilateral contract although the offer is to a specific person rather than the world at large as in Carlill.

    I'm glad about that! I thought I was on crack or something for a while there. (I was tired, too, and don't always think about these questions as carefully as I would for problems for a supervision.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I will definetely. Thanks so much everybody for all your advice. I really appreciate them a lot. Wishing you all a Merry Xmas!!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello! Hope you had a nice Xmas day and feel good. Bothering again with a question When payments are refused by parties saying that for a very little effort they are not going to pay the answer would be that they are in breach of contract. Is that right? I think the issue of promissory estoppel is not a case here as there is a consideration in the contract, but I think I might need to mention why it is not an issue here. I can say that there is a bilateral contract between the parties as the consideration is provided be exchanges of promises. Therefore the owner of the company will be able to enforce the promise. Also there is an intention to create legal relation as that dog later is sold for £1500. Moreover, it's a business for John therefore he is expecting them to paid for the provided service. My point of veiw is there are two separate contracts even though it's his existing duty to a third party. I have a question to what I would like to have an answer if possible. If the "Wewillfingthedog" fails to find the dog would the promisors be able to sue him? If they can a double liability issue will arise here. (?) If they would not be able to sue him would he have double liability towards them? Thanks a lot in advance!

    Your help is very much appreciated!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MariaAlba)
    Hello! Hope you had a nice Xmas day and feel good. Bothering again with a question When payments are refused by parties saying that for a very little effort they are not going to pay the answer would be that they are in breach of contract. Is that right?
    Yes, fact that "for a very little effort" or whatever is not relevant, if you breach the terms of a contract its a breach of contract

    I think the issue of promissory estoppel is not a case here as there is a consideration in the contract, but I think I might need to mention why it is not an issue here.
    I don't see anything on these facts to suggest a p.e. so don't see why you'd even mention it. We'd be hear forever if we went through every tangentially relevant legal principle and explained why it doesn't apply.

    I can say that there is a bilateral contract between the parties as the consideration is provided be exchanges of promises. Therefore the owner of the company will be able to enforce the promise. Also there is an intention to create legal relation as that dog later is sold for £1500. Moreover, it's a business for John therefore he is expecting them to paid for the provided service. My point of veiw is there are two separate contracts even though it's his existing duty to a third party.
    ok

    I have a question to what I would like to have an answer if possible. If the "Wewillfingthedog" fails to find the dog would the promisors be able to sue him? If they can a double liability issue will arise here. (?) If they would not be able to sue him would he have double liability towards them? Thanks a lot in advance!

    Your help is very much appreciated!
    Depends on the terms of the contract. Are the terms such that he MUST find the dog? Are they such that he must use his best endeavours or reasonable endeavours to find the dog? Or does he have no obligation whatsoever but can only get paid if he finds the dog? These are questions of construction (though obviously if its a unilateral Carlil-type contract there is no contract until its accepted by finding the dog I think) judged objectively.

    RE: double liability, yes. The rule is double-recovery not double-liability. You can't recover twice for the same loss: e.g. if I couldn't work because someone skiied into my leg, I could recover loss of earnings for that, but couldn't recover loss of earnings again for breaking my arm in the same accident because I could only ever earn once. You can be liable to different people under different contracts. e.g. if McDonalds sold a bad burger to John and a bad burger to me, of course the fact that John is suing them won't stop me...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariaalba)
    They bump into each other in the street and I have only one sentence saying: "I will pay you £10 of my own money if you find the dog". That's why I was suggesting that the consideration goes only one way, and it's a reward for finding the dog. It's not clear from the situation if the dog finder provides the consideration or not
    If he finds the dog surely thats consideration? (although maybe the "from the promisor" rule is relevant...)

    Why do you think it isn't consideration?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is an exact copy of BPP GDL coursework. Part of the final assessment just with the names and amounts changed. If/when caught you would be breaking the academic regulations and would be chucked off the course and never be able to practice as a lawyer. Just a thought.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.