1. avatar says

    Hi Mike,

    In the area of consideration & Privity of Contract what would be the Principals responsibility for the following:

    A person sell parcels of land (Mr X). The proper surveys and searches were performed and deeds issued to the buyers were stamped by the Government. Some of the homer owners have started construction on these lands. After a year they are approached by someone claiming to be the owner. This person(Mr T) also present their deed to all the parcels of land issued long before the current home owners purchased the land.

    When it is all sorted out Mr X committed fraud and sold property that was not his own.

    He dies before he could be sued by the current home owners.

    Can the monies be recovered from his estate if it has already passed to his relatives?

    Since the deeds were fraudulent, all of the current homeowners never had a contract with Mr T. Do they have any rights?

    Does Mr T have any obligations to them?

    Is the Government liable to compensate any of the parties?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Wow, this sounds like a problem from real life! Difficult to see how the government (land registry) could have made this mistake but you tell me, in your “what if” scenario that that is what has happened, so let’s move on.

      Mr X estate liable? I imagine (and by that I mean that I don’t know so now I’m guessing!) that Mr X’s estate would be liable. Otherwise, everyone on their death bed would be committing fraud and entering contracts with a view to avoiding any liability by dying

      I doubt whether Mr T has any obligation

      I’ve blithely skipped over the role of Land Registry but believe that therein lies the big problem. If anyone is due to compensate the “buyers” I imagine that it would be Land Registry and they in turn may sue Mr X estate

      But I could be SO wrong!


      • avatar says

        Hi Mike. It did actually happen. I don’t know the parties but the land in question is a few streets away from mine( at least that’s what I heard). Since the contract with Mr X was illegal, I was wondering how that would have affected the buyers and Mr T. Since Mr T has no contract with any of the parties involved in the contract but has persons building and living on their property.

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        Looks like one for land registry (and the solicitors involved in the conveyancing!)

        Someone is seriously at fault here – keep me posted!

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Hi – the word is “peppercorn”

      This is from wikipedia:

      “A peppercorn in legal parlance is a metaphor for a very small payment, a nominal consideration, used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal contract. “A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn”, says Chappell v Nestlé”


  2. avatar says

    Q1 – What you are saying about transferring the bill of exchange, is it the same as discounting the bill?
    Q2 – I have read this ”A holder in due course is a protected holder because he has accepted the bill in good faith and is presumed to be unaware of any defects in the title of transferor or the bill itself, that (if such were the case) the instrument was at any time overdue, dishonored when presented for payment, had any claims against it, or the party required to pay it has valid reason for not doing so.” So the holder in due course if proved to be aware of any of the facts above may be unable to sue?
    Q3 -You said that holder in due course can sue all parties who signed the bill in any capacity, but they should be doing it in their legal capacity?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      The act of discounting a bill of exchange is in fact negotiating it to the bank for value.

      Yes, if a holder – apparently a holder in due course – can be shown to have had prior knowledge of defects in the bill, then that person cannot be a holder in due course

      What do you mean “sign ed in their legal capacity”? If you sign a blank sheet of paper and it is then filled in with all the necessary details to make that piece of paper into a bill of exchange with you as the drawer and your bank as the drawee, I (as a holder in due course that has subsequently taken the bill in good faith by process of negotiation) am now in a position to sue you. Why? Because you have signed a bill of exchange!

  3. avatar says

    Mike.. I went through all the lecture videos, but I didn’t come across the section where you discussed about Hanzard etc. Have I missed any lectures or wasn’t that particular lecture been uploaded?

  4. avatar says

    Didn’t the case of William v Roffey Bros involve a carpenter contracted by Roffey who was a builder for a block of flats? R offered W an extra amount of money to get the job done by a set date that would save R from penalty clauses on his side of the contract. It was held that there was sufficient consideration, despite W carrying out his contractual duties as it conferred some extra benefit to R. (saving of penalty clause and need to hire extra staff)

      • avatar says

        No problem, but as it was a good example for use in what constitutes consideration, I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly and the case differed somewhat in your description of it and my understanding of it. I got the impression that you were classing it as an example of why performance of an existing duty was not sufficient but I was looking at it as in what circumstances existing performance can constitute consideration without exceeding current duties (unlike Hartely v Ponsonby where they exceeded their contractual obligations).

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        But in Williams v Roffey what you call “existing performance” was changed as a result of the additional information given to the carpenter. In effect, it was a new contract, additional to the existing one

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Well, I consider that a success – many (the majority) of students either fear the subject or claim to be bored by it. It’s TOTALLY FASCINATING – I love it even though the stories I tell are not always (ever) close the the actual facts. See the post above this from Hadyn :-)

  5. avatar says

    This is a tremendousely fascinating subject especially due to the fact that teacher Mike – apart of having a great gift of teaching – is tremendousely funny (e.g. “if you remember the stories, the names will come automatically”). Thank you teacher for the great time I have watching your lectures.I almost think I will not be too sorry if I will not pass the exam this time :)

  6. avatar says

    In the case Glassbrook v Glamorgan i would have argued that since the threat against Glassbrook was clearly higher than an ordinary citizen therfore police protection would likewise have to be increased for him to be ‘offered’ the same service the police offer to an ordinary citizen..

  7. avatar says

    Dear Admin.
    I really appreciate your effort. And thank u for that. May God bless u.
    Can u plz snd me the link of video lectures of English legal system, Employment contract, Law of trot.. plz. That will be gratefull..

    • Profile photo of admin says

      @agnescu, did you not see the joke? :)
      it was not rude but sarcastic,

      believe me, you would feel the same way if you read all the messages posted here… Professionals should know how to make their PC work, or check if their PC is the problem, but it is just easier to leave a msg saying, it does not work..

      anyways, I hope it plays OK for you,

Leave a Reply