Uol Law of Contract Past Paper Question 2010

1100 WordsMar 5, 20135 Pages
YEAR 2010 Response In advising Bertie it is necessary to determine whether Bertie entered into contracts with Fred, Liam and Harold. The first set of issues is concerned with the arrangement between Bertie and his neighbor Fred. More specifically one must look at whether the promise to fix the fence was given in return for consideration. It would appear that the special rate was not given in return for a promise that Bertie is trying to enforce. Past consideration is best described as consideration which has been performed before the parties have reached any form of agreement. This is generally does not amount to good consideration as seen in the case Re Mc Ardle. In recent times however the courts have acknowledged the harshness when rigidly adhering to the past consideration rule. According to the case law in Pa On v Lau Yiu Long, past consideration can be good when three preconditions are satisfied. These are the act must be done at the promisor’s request as was derived in Lampleigh v Braithwait, the parties must have understood that the act was to remunerated either by payment or the conferment of another benefit as illustrated in the case Re Casey’s Patents and the payment or the conferment of a benefit must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance. In the case between Bertie and Fred, the facts do not show Bertie (the promisor) requesting Fred to fix Bertie’s garden fence. In fact Fred suggests that he fix Bertie’s garden fence after being ‘thrilled at the special rate.’ The facts also suggest that neither understood that when Bertie given the timber at a discounted price, Fred must fix Bertie’s fence as payment. Additionally, there was not an agreement made in advance by Bertie and Fred stating that if Bertie gives Fred timbre at a discounted price that Fred would fix Bertie’s garden fence. Seeing that none of the

More about Uol Law of Contract Past Paper Question 2010

Open Document