The court of Currie v Misa [1] declared that consideration was a “right, interest, benefit, advantage or indulgence, inconvenience, loss, liability”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promiser in exchange for something of value that is made by a promise; and typically, the question of value is the commodity, money or an action. The indulgence to act, such as an adult who promises not to smoke, is enforceable only if one thus renounces a legal right. [2] [3] [4] There is an exception to this rule where there is an obligation to a third party. An act that occurs before making a promise of payment or granting of another benefit can sometimes be a consideration for the promise. For this to apply, three conditions must be met (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]: as a general rule, courts do not ask whether the agreement between two parties was monetarily fair, except that each party has passed on a legal or binding obligation to the other party. [29] [30] The dispositive issue is the existence of considerations and not the adequacy of the consideration. The values between the counterparties issued against each other by each party to a contract must not be comparable. Contract law states that “the counterparty must move away from the promise.” It is a frequent occurrence that employers ask workers to sign a revised version of their employment contracts.
The revised version of the contract is usually on less favourable terms than the original. [27] [28] Estoppel is a just doctrine that provides for the creation of legal obligations where one party has given assurance to another party and the other has relied on insurance to its detriment. There are a number of frequently asked questions about whether there is a counterparty in a contract: the consideration that is for a part the advantage of the contract (for example. B get money) is the burden of others (e.g.B. payment of money). Most common law principles of Contracts are described in the Restatement of the Law Second, Contracts published by the American Law Institute. . . .