Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for March and June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Reader Interactions

Comments

  3. Hello sir,

    In reima cartel case or whatsoever the last case in this video you said the plaintiff lost case because renovation work was done before promise was delivered by relatives of that old woman.
    1.But why isn’t it noted or considered that promise would have not been done( most probably) by relatives if renovation work was not performed, so I think that is consideration. 2.And more over it doesn’t seem that the promise was done for past consideration as promise was delivered in very short time i.e. reasonable time.

    • Re McArdle is the classic example of “past consideration is no consideration”

      It’s a good job that you’re not a Law Lord!

      If there had been a discussion and the daughter in law had said “I will look after all the renovation work but I’m going to have to charge for it” then there would have been no argument – the money would have been payable

      But there wasn’t and she didn’t

      Imagine having completed something for which your brother later comes along and says “I’ll pay half the cost of that work that you have done” but then he changes his mind.

      Do you think that you have a claim against your brother?

      I hope that you answered “No” to that question

      OK?

  4. Good Afternoon Mike.
    The Dec 2014 exam had a question (Section B) with an Advert with an offer to sell a printer for 拢500. To me this is similar to Partridge, where the advert is merely an invitation to treat. However, from the answers, it is in fact an offer, I understand in the Carlill case, the element of the reward. Would you explain why this exam question is in fact an offer?

  5. Hi Mike,

    With regards to specialty contracts, is there any way that a verbal promise can be enforced by conduct. Say for instance someone wanted to move out of a bad neighborhood. Their parent possessed a parcel of land aside from their residence and promised this to the child so that he/she would be living in a safer neighborhood. The child sold their home and built a house on that land. After the house is built the parent decides not to transfer the land.

    Can this be acceptance by conduct ( allowing the child to sell their home and build on the land) or is the verbal promise not enforceable because there is no material consideration for the parent?

      • There is a case (and I can’t remember the name) where the court said that there was no logical reason for the plaintiff to have taken the action that they did (daughter sold house and built new one) except in accordance with a contract that she claimed to exist.

        “where the acts of the plaintiff are such that they are in accordance with the plaintiff’s claim and there would be no other logical cause for those acts, then the plaintiff’s claim will succeed”

        In the case that you have set up, it could well be the case that the court will accept the conduct of the plaintiff to be sufficient confirmation that an oral promise did exist.

        Additionally, in English law, a contract for the sale or transfer of land needs to be evidenced in writing (I’m on shaky ground here – its so long since I taught this particular element!) but, even though there is officially a requirement for evidence, there is certainly one case from relatively recent history where the court simply did away with that requirement

        “where the acts of the plaintiff are consistent with the plaintiff’s claim ……….”

      • Thanks very much for your reply Mike, could you tell me how recent the ruling was made. I’d like to search for the name of the case. Thanks

      • If I said “in the 1950s, 60s or early 70s” ………. I could still be wrong!

        The case Parker v Clark is along similar lines but is not the case I was thinking about

  6. 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.

  8. 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

    • @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

  14. 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