- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
There is a question in my F4 Kit:
Quote:13 Ali (12/07)
Ali is an antique dealer and one Saturday in November 20X7 he put a vase in the window of his shop with a sign which stated ‘exceptional piece of 19th century pottery – on offer for £500’.
Ben happened to notice the vase as he walked past the shop and thought he would like to have it. Unfortunately, as he was late for an important meeting, he could not go into the shop to buy it, but as soon as his meeting was finished he wrote to Ali agreeing to buy the vase for the stated price of £500. The letter was posted at 11:30 am.
Later on the same day, Chet visited Ali’s shop and said he would like the vase but was only willing to pay £400 for it. Ali replied that he would accept £450 for the vase, but Chet insisted that he was only willing to pay £400 and left the shop. However, on his journey home Chet realised that £450 was actually a very good price for the vase and he immediately wrote to Ali agreeing to buy it for that price. His letter was posted at 12:30 pm. Just before closing time at 5 pm. Di came into Ali’s shop and she also offered £400 for the vase. This time Ali agreed to sell the vase at that price and Di promised to return the following Monday with the money.
On the Monday morning Ali received both of the letters from Ben and Chet before Di could arrive to pay and collect the vase.The answer to this question confuses me as it states that Ali is in a contract with Di to sell the vase for 400 pounds because their agreement is supported by Executory consideration :
Quote:Di made a valid offer to Ali to buy the vase for £400 which was accepted. Di’s promise to pay Ali and Ali’s promise to provide the vase to Di on Monday are both executory consideration, which is valid to support a contract.
Therefore Di has a contract to buy the vase from Ali which will be valid unless and until she fails to pay for the vase on Monday. In that event Ali will be free to sell the vase to Ben, Chet or anyone else.But there was no amount paid by Di so how can it be sufficient consideration?
I didn’t want to start another post for this as it is a simple question:
Can you please give me an example of the type of question that would be asked for “1 Interpretation of statute” – Given in the exam tips for Paper F4.
Thank you!
Hi Fezi
First question first. One of the definitions of consideration ( Dunlop v Selfridges ) states that a promise is consideration to support either an act or another promise. It’s called executory consideration and it means that the goods / cash has not actually changed hands yet, but it’s promised. That kind of promise IS SUFFICIENT to merit the title consideration
Your second question, listen to the audio lecture and / or read the course notes – and then listen to the audio!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.