1. 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?

  2. 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 :-)

  3. 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 :)

  4. 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..

  5. 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