Comments

  1. avatar says

    Dear Mike, Thank you very much for this lecture. This site is really wonderful. I would be grateful if you could help me on one question. Can you please explain Dunlop V Selfridges and Currie V Misa cases in brief? Because the way you explain it is simpler than reading the case notes, and it is harder to understand the cases just simply by reading the case notes.

  2. Profile photo of nzeadall says

    Dear Mike, Thank you very much for this super lecture. This site is really wonderful. I would be grateful if you could help me on one question. With reference to case Re: McArdle, the family promised to pay Mrs McArdle $850, is this not kind of an oral agreement which is just as binding in law as a written agreement? I mean we understand that she already did the whole work prior to the agreement, but can’t we consider that promise as some kind of “offer” which was made and agreed? ( and unintentionally conferred into legal relations). Thank you

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      @aqlakhani, Better if you can quote case names, for example “Offers can be made to the World at large ( Carlill v Carbolic )” but they are not absolutely essential for success. They DO improve the quality of your answer but, if you can’t remember them, don’t lose sleep over it

  3. Profile photo of paladin says

    The definition of consideration as taken from Currie v Misa 1875:

    “A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forebearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.”

    Consideration is an essential part of most contracts and is what each party brings to the contract.

    One party must know that he has bought the other party’s promises either by performing some act of his own or by offering a promise of his own.

    Taken from Chapter 5 in BPP.

Leave a Reply