Agreement Without Consideration Judgement
A commitment to fulfil an existing contractual obligation to a third party (as opposed to the fulfilment of that obligation) may also be a consideration.  A promise to pay for a previous voluntary service is mandatory and these agreements do not require an exception. Services need to be provided on a voluntary basis. For example, if A B supports, son and B promises to pay the expenses of A. It`s a contract. when he realized that B had a legal obligation to support his grandson. In accordance with this exception, the promise must be to compensate a person who has done something for the promisor, not for a person who has done nothing for the promisor. Reflection can have value of everything (like all the goods, money, services or promises of each of them) that each party gives as against money to support its side of the bargain. Mutual promises are respect for each other.  If only one party makes a quid pro quo, the agreement is a “cash promise” and unenforceable. In addition, a contract between two parties and one party after its creation promises to give an additional benefit to the other party, since the consideration of the undertaking, that is, its entry into the original contract, had already been entered into (or “used”) at the time of the next commitment. However, the rigour of this rule was severely limited in the Williams v Roffey Bros.
– Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.  The Roffey Brothers entered into a contract for the renovation of a $20,000 fixed-price building. They gave Williams carpentry work. It turned out that Williams was in danger of financial difficulties and that she could not finish her work on time. This would have breached a clause in the main contract and imposed a penalty. Roffey Brothers offered Williams an additional $575 $US for each completed apartment. Williams continued to work on that basis, but it soon became clear that Roffey Brothers would not pay the extra money. He ended work and sued Roffey Brothers over the extra money for the eight apartments he had completed after promising an additional payment. The Court of Appeal held that Roffey Brothers williams had to pay the extra money because they had practical benefits from the promise they had made to Williams.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.