• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

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

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA LW (ENG/GLO):
  • LW-ENG notes
  • LW-GLO notes
  • LW-ENG lectures
  • LW-GLO lectures
  • LW-ENG Practice Questions
  • LW-GLO Practice Questions
  • LW-ENG Flashcards
  • LW-GLO Flashcards
  • LW-ENG Revision Mock Exam
  • LW-GLO Revision Mock Exam
  • LW Forums
  • Ask the Tutor
  • Ask AI (New!)

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

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

Consideration – Sufficient Not Necessarily Adequate – ACCA Corporate and Business Law (LW) (ENG)

VIVA

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. hermela says

    January 8, 2022 at 8:11 pm

    mike i really want to than you for the lecture as usual. my question is that in william v roffey case .. i didnt get the point how the hotel own win in the case that u stated

    Log in to Reply
  2. shakir7385 says

    February 10, 2021 at 4:54 am

    Sir, i am sorry but Ward v. Byham case seems little different from what educated in this lecture. Or i may got it wrong. Actual case was:

    “Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 Court of Appeal

    An unmarried couple had a child together and lived together for five years. The father then turned the mother out of the house and sent the child to live with a neighbour and the father paid the neighbour £1 per week. The mother then got a job as a live in house keeper and wished to have the daughter live with her. The father agreed to allow the daughter live with the mother and agreed to pay her £1 per week provided she ensured the child was well looked after and happy. The father made payments but then when the mother remarried he stopped making payments. The mother brought an action to enforce the agreement. The father argued that the Mother was under an existing legal duty to look after and maintain the child and therefore was not providing any consideration for the promise to make payment.”

    Log in to Reply
    • shakir7385 says

      February 10, 2021 at 4:54 am

      Source http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Ward-v-Byham.php

      Log in to Reply
      • barbjohn says

        February 10, 2021 at 8:41 am

        In defence of Mike, if you follow this link

        https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/cases/ward-v-byham/

        it seems that the discussion of sufficiency of consideration is up for grabs

        In addition, according to this link, it’s the father that remarries, not the mother

  3. asher2019 says

    September 24, 2020 at 8:48 am

    Thanks

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in