Hi sir, Im quite confused as to the current position of (Part payment of a debt is no satisfaction) as compared to (existing contractual duty's practical benefit in Williams can be good consideration for the promisee) The way i understand it is that it is contradictory, because on one hand, no matter what promise is made (NOM clause), part payment is not good consideration, however the latter case was that if the some practical benefit is achieved by the promisor (Williams) then it can be good consideration and promise can be enforceable. Ive spent few hours on this, and i'm not sure if im in the right direction at all. Please enlighten me, thank you.
Hi Timothy. The concepts of Part Payment is different from the principle in Williams of 'Practical Benefit'. In a nutshell, the Law states that (1) you cannot be absolved from the complete requirement of consideration by making a part payment (unless something additional is done). On the other hand (2) Williams suggests that, essentially, you can't ask for more money for an existing obligation unless there's a 'practical benefit' involved. Why don't we discuss further over a session? Drop me an email: shaveen@outlook.com
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851. If you are interested in learning more, along with an outline set of Case Summaries, drop a email on: shaveen@outlook.com
+Reena Sharma Hi Reena. I believe India has elements of U.K. Incorporated into it depending on the subject matter. For instance, Contract Law, for the most part, is derived from U.K.
please an employer send his employee to search for his lost cat when the employee left, he adverted that anyone who finds the cat will be rewarded €1000 the employee came back to see the advert and went to the employer for the money but the employer never gv the money to him Can she sue ??
+Emmanuel Gameti It depends on the context Emmanuel. On the one hand, he was directed by his employer to complete a task. Therefore, he may not be able to sue. On the other hand, the task which he undertook may not necessarily fall within the type of ‘job’ or ‘work’ he is paid to do and thus outside of his employment which may entitle him for payment. Considering the above however, it is clear that he undertook the task originally without an expectation of payment. So in this event, it’s unlikely he could claim for services rendered earlier.
Hi Alex. Thanks for the feedback. The case summaries and spider graphs are part of the complete course. You can access those and more from here: bit.ly/Contract-Law
Hi. The complete course, which includes the soft copies of the Spider Graphs and Case Summaries is available from the following link: bit.ly/Contract-Law
I have an exam in 6 hours and these videos have really been helpful in my revision, thank you very much.
I'm glad these videos were helpful. Hope your exam went well!
Way much easier ❤❤
Slight lack of detail, but highlights the case’s well. It’s helping me with my revision thank you!
Hi Eva. You can access my complete course which is more comprehensive in content through the links in the video description. Cheers.
Thank you, this is valuable to me. I will continue to use you spider map method.
For past consideration, what is the full case with regards to Re Mcardo?
If for example somebody does an offer i didn't request and the person insists on getting paid for it. What law is applicable
Excellent lecture
Thank you
This was very helpful.
Hi sir, Im quite confused as to the current position of (Part payment of a debt is no satisfaction) as compared to (existing contractual duty's practical benefit in Williams can be good consideration for the promisee)
The way i understand it is that it is contradictory, because on one hand, no matter what promise is made (NOM clause), part payment is not good consideration, however the latter case was that if the some practical benefit is achieved by the promisor (Williams) then it can be good consideration and promise can be enforceable.
Ive spent few hours on this, and i'm not sure if im in the right direction at all. Please enlighten me, thank you.
Hi Timothy. The concepts of Part Payment is different from the principle in Williams of 'Practical Benefit'. In a nutshell, the Law states that (1) you cannot be absolved from the complete requirement of consideration by making a part payment (unless something additional is done). On the other hand (2) Williams suggests that, essentially, you can't ask for more money for an existing obligation unless there's a 'practical benefit' involved. Why don't we discuss further over a session? Drop me an email: shaveen@outlook.com
The Law Simplified thank u. Ok will drop you an email if there is anything else. Thanks for the kind offer. Really appreciate it sir
VERY GOOD!! put the icing on the contract cake ...
Whats the neutral citation for the Thomas v Thomas case? Im really sturggling to find it
Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851. If you are interested in learning more, along with an outline set of Case Summaries, drop a email on: shaveen@outlook.com
Is it the same with Australian law?
+Sevara Rakhimova Hi Sevara. Mostly, yes. I believe there are a few procedural differences.
Hello, what about consideration in commercial law ? is it the same ?
Thankyou
Hi. Yes, in Commercial Law, we focus not on the contractual aspects, but the principles that are applicable in the operation of such contracts.
Thnkyou , it helps me 😊
may I have any soft copy for law and contract
thank q sir
Is this uk law?
Yes, it is.
The Law Simplified then what about India's law...
+Reena Sharma Hi Reena. I believe India has elements of U.K. Incorporated into it depending on the subject matter. For instance, Contract Law, for the most part, is derived from U.K.
The Law Simplified, Ohk😄 thanks sir...
please an employer send his employee to search for his lost cat when the employee left, he adverted that anyone who finds the cat will be rewarded €1000 the employee came back to see the advert and went to the employer for the money but the employer never gv the money to him
Can she sue ??
+Emmanuel Gameti It depends on the context Emmanuel. On the one hand, he was directed by his employer to complete a task. Therefore, he may not be able to sue. On the other hand, the task which he undertook may not necessarily fall within the type of ‘job’ or ‘work’ he is paid to do and thus outside of his employment which may entitle him for payment. Considering the above however, it is clear that he undertook the task originally without an expectation of payment. So in this event, it’s unlikely he could claim for services rendered earlier.
Where is case summary ? cheers, nice work btw
Hi Alex. Thanks for the feedback. The case summaries and spider graphs are part of the complete course. You can access those and more from here: bit.ly/Contract-Law
thank you, i will need sometimes :)
Hi could I email you?
Drop me an email: shaveen@outlook.com
The lack of detail though...
00 of
helpful but for one second I thought this is India law due to the voice
may I have any soft copy for law and contract
Hi. The complete course, which includes the soft copies of the Spider Graphs and Case Summaries is available from the following link:
bit.ly/Contract-Law