Contract law assessment Watch

sophie0808
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I've got my contract assessment coming up next week and i've spent weeks trying to find legal areas and cases to back them up but i've struggled so much to the point where i'm on the verge on giving up. Can anyone please help me in finding a case related to "consideration" for this following case. Or even just a point related to consideration in which i can apply to argue FOR the claiment (Celia).

It'll be appreciated so much.

Sparks plc is an electronic retailing company with branches throughout the country. Jim is the manager of the Middletown Branch. Sparks launch a special advertising campaign to promote sales of a new all-digital tv system, stating first that the new digital TV system is on a special offer, priced £200 below normal retail price; and second, that all customers purchasing the Tv system will receive a brand new personal CD player free.

Jim knows Celia, a friend of his, is thinking about buying a new tv. He telephones her, telling her that she can get the TV system at Sparks for £200 below normal price.

The next day Celia comes into the shop, and buys the TV, pleased to be paying the lower price. As she is writing the cheque, the shop assistant, Bob, tells her that they have run out of CD players, but should be getting more in stock in about a week. Celia says she has no idea what he is talking about. Bob explains about the free CD player, and Celia promises to return to collect her CD player in a weeks time.

When she comes back to collect her free CD player, she sees Jim, who explains that, owing to unprecedented demand, supplies of the CD player are exhausted and Sparks has made no arrangements for any alternative free gift. Celia decides to sue Sparks.
0
reply
mirianchoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Hi there! I am a law student at the Australian National University. Here in Australia, we also learn some UK cases. Thus, I would like to help you out with the relevant UK cases on consideration.

Consideration has been defined as 'loss or inconvenience suffered by one party at the request of the other' (Bunn v Guy (1803) 4 East 190). Another definition would be 'some detriment to the plaintiff or some benefit to the defendant' (Thomas v Thomas [1842] 2 QB 851).

I prefer the more comprehensive definition in Currie v Misa (1875) 1 App Cas 554: 'some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forebearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other'.

For another complete definition, refer to Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, where the House of Lords agreed that 'an act of forbearance or the promise thereof is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable'.

Applying the definition of consideration to the facts, there would be detriment on Sparks' side of losing a CD player and benefit to Celia upon receiving the CD player. Hence, the basic definition of consideration has been met. Although Sparks would argue that Celia did not provide consideration because the CD player is free, consideration exists if any one party suffers detriment.

Consideration must be adequate and sufficient.

Even one pound per year as nominal ground rent was held to be adequate as consideration in Thomas v Thomas [1842] 2 QB 851. Note that courts are not interested in whether there has been a good or bad bargain. They are only interested in enforcing the initial promise agreed upon by both parties.

Consideration is sufficient if it is real, tangible and has actual value in the eyes of the law. In Chappell v Nestle Co [1960] AC 87, chocolate wrappers were considered as sufficient consideration despite the fact that they were thrown away upon receipt.

The CD player is likely to be adequate and sufficient consideration despite the fact that it is to be given free. CD players have economic value and the courts seldom question the adequacy of consideration. After all, even a peppercorn can be good consideration (Chappell v Nestle Co [1960] AC 87) and CD players are arguably worth more than peppercorns in terms of economic value.

Consideration must also move from the promisee (Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 121 ER 762). Spark would argue that Celia did not suffer any detriment because the CD player is free. Thus, Spark would argue that consideration did not flow from Celia. However, a similar argument was considered in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Contractors Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 512, where Glidewell LJ distinguished Tweddle v Atkinson on the basis that there, a third party (Tweddle) was trying to enforce the contract and had not provided any consideration. It is sufficient that the promisee confers a benefit on the promisor, which has been done here where Celia has benefited Sparks by purchasing a TV set.

Therefore, there is valid consideration.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • SOAS University of London
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 29 May '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Thu, 30 May '19
  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Fri, 31 May '19

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (200)
22.55%
The paper was reasonable (403)
45.43%
Not feeling great about that exam... (165)
18.6%
It was TERRIBLE (119)
13.42%

Watched Threads

View All