|
|
It will be necessary to give special reference to the law of consideration in dealing with both cases so as to give a careful determination on whether Paul should pay the extra money to the contractors or the bonus to his staff. When identifying what consideration is, it will also be right to consider if the rules of consideration were met in this case so as to help in deciding whether Bookworm Ltd. should pay both parties the agreed extra amounts or bonuses. In consideration, a promise made by deed is binding, and a promise in a ‘simple’ contract, that is; not by deed, is binding if it is supported by consideration. It is however important to note that a promise not supported by consideration, is not binding. It is also important to note that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law, though it does not need to be adequate. Value is interpreted as economic value and not moral obligation, as can be referred to the case of Thomas V Thomas, whereby Mrs. Thomas’ payment of £1 per year to her late husband’s executors to live in the house for the rest of her life, was held by the court as sufficient consideration. We could apply to this case some of the rules of consideration that state that consideration must move from the promisee and that it must not be past. As promises to perform existing duties are considered insufficient consideration, that is, not consideration, it can be argued that Paul was not bound to pay his employees the bonus he had promised them as first of all, his employees had not been promised by him before they had transferred the books into the new warehouse that he will pay them a bonus. The promise to pay his staff the £50 bonus was made later on that night after he was so pleased at the speed at which they had shifted the books into the new warehouse.
|
