- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- Posts
Hi Mike!
I have actually watched your lectures and specially your explanation on the case of ‘Chappel v Nestle’. However I still have some issues.
Could you explain how:
– The wrappers form part of the consideration?
-How the wrappers did have a value?Thanks.
If I answer the second part, then that also answers the first part of your question
They had a value because 3 wrappers + 11 (new pence) was the consideration – but how do wrappers have a value?
Ask Eminem!
Seriously, they proved to Fry’s Chocolate company that someone, at sometime, had bought that chocolate bar
That’s why / how they formed part of the consideration and how they had a value
OK?
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- The topic ‘contract’ is closed to new replies.