Should the "Doctrine of Consideration" be abolished?

Ciaran Gallagher

E-Book (pdf)

(0)

Erste Bewertung abgeben

Essay from the year 2016 in the subject Law - Civil / Private / Trade / Anti Trust Law / Business Law, National University of Ire...

CHF13.90

Download steht sofort bereit

E-Book (pdf)

Beschreibung

Essay from the year 2016 in the subject Law - Civil / Private / Trade / Anti Trust Law / Business Law, National University of Ireland, Galway, course: Corporate Law, language: English, abstract: This essay is asking the question whether the doctrine of consideration ought to be abolished. It will argue that all that should be required for a legally binding promise is a clear intention to be bound by the terms of a promise and, perhaps, detrimental reliance on that promise by the other party. The Doctrine of Consideration is one of the three essential parts which make up a valid contract, the other two being that of offer and acceptance. In a contract, if consideration is not part of the contract then it will determine whether it is enforceable or not unless it's incorporated into a deed under a seal. This particular requirement in terms of contract law has been put under much scrutiny recently and there have been calls for the abolition of the doctrine. In this essay we will take a look at the functions of consideration, it's purpose in modern law and the possible alternatives were it to be abolished. Consideration is prone to much criticism as it is said to have a very narrow scope as a definition with many suggesting that the narrowness the doctrine shows is now more about denying legal effect in most promises. The thinking behind this criticism is that many courts bring consideration into cases without a second thought and use it as a tool to guide their judgements. This then leads to it being open to many more avenues such as the Williams v Roffey case where they suggested that practical benefit counted as sufficient consideration. This then leads to unlawful claims as never before had consideration been brought into a pre-existing contract case.