Did Amy bound by her promise?
In Amy’s case, have no doubt, Amy is the offeror who provides an offer to Beryl and her family who have accepted it by receive Amy’s money or others. However, there are requirements to form a valid contract other than offer and acceptance, that are, intention to create legal relation and consideration. What is consideration? It can be describe as being something which represent either some benefit to the person making a promise or some detriment to the person to whom the promise is made. The term consideration is given to the subject that is exchanged in a contract.1 It is a fundamental prerequisite in English contract law. 2 The courts has explained the consideration in the case of Dunlop v Selfridge3 in terms of purchase and sale. The claimant must show that he or she has bought the defendant’s promise by doing, giving or promising something in return for it. The basic rule is a promise will not be enforceable unless it is supported by consideration. While the element of intention to create legal relation too will affect the validity of promises between Amy and Beryl, David, and Charlie. So, there is a question that is there an intention to create legal relation between Amy and each of Beryl’s family? As far as this topic is concern, contract will be divided into domestic and social agreement and commercial transaction on the other hand. For the domestic and social agreement, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relation. 4 This is arose in Jones v Padavatton.5 Claimant offered a monthly allowance to her daughter if she would give up her job and train to be a barrister in England. Later, claimant bought a house where daughter live and received rent from other tenants. Later, when they quarrelled, her mother sought possession of the house. The court held that, neither of the agreement was intended to create legal relations, they were merely family arrangement. Hence, the mother was entitled to possession of the house. This is similar with Amy’s case, where Beryl, Charlie and David is considered as Amy’s family. The promise made by Amy can be say that there are only family arrangement between them. Furthermore, they have no writing agreement between them. Thus, there have nothing to rebut the presumption that the parties do not intend to create the legal relation. Since there have no intention to create legal relation between them, Amy therefore do not bound by her promise to give money to Beryl and David, and does not need to receive the reduce sum from Charlie as a full settlement. 6Beryl and her family also will not able to bring their case to the court as there is only family arrangement, the court had really no place to interfere. However, if consideration is consider, Amy may have bound by her promise. Firstly, Amy offer to give David £1,000, with the condition that he obtains a second- class degree. Is there any consideration between them? There are some rules of consideration that we have to comply with it, in order to make the consideration to be valid. In the problem between Amy and David, we will concern in the first rule, consideration need not benefit the promisor. Therefore, consideration will exist too if promise suffers some detriment at the promisor’s request. For example, in Jones v Padavatton7, daughter’s giving up her job would be consideration for the mother providing allowance, even this did not directly benefit the mother. According to this, there is no consideration between Amy and David, because he suffer no loss from Amy’s promise, as David, who is exceptionally intelligent, does only little work, but manages to obtain a first class degree. Besides, this is a responsibility for David to get a good result as a student and as a son. Thus, Amy is not bound by her promise to pay the £1,000 to David as Amy did not get any benefit and David did not suffer any loss from Amy’s promise. Besides, we would like to know that...
Bibliography: Halson, Rogel. Contract Law. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 2013. Print.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd  UKHL 1,  AC 847
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36
Foakes v Beer (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605 House of Lords
Hirachand Punamchand v Temple  2 KB 330 Court of Appeal
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House  KB 130 High Court
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 439 House of Lords
Please join StudyMode to read the full document