1.''A consideration must be adequate'' do you agree with the statement?

Discuss your
answer by quoting the relevant decided cases to support your answer.
A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest,
profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility
given suffered or undertaken by the other.
In Williams v Roffey ros ! "icholls #$%%$& $ ' $ the (ourt of Appeal re)ected the distinction
between factual and legal benefit and that factual benefit was sufficient consideration.
*he )urist +ir ,rederick -ollock considered that consideration could be defined as .the price
for which the promise of the other is bought/, a statement approved by the 0ouse of 1ords in
2unlop -neumatic *yre (o 1td v +elfridge and (o 1td #$%$3& A( 456.
(onsideration is concerned with the e7change of promises or the doing of an act, in a
unilateral contract, in return for the promise.
*reitel observes .the general rule is that a promise is only regarded as a consideration if its
performance would also have been so regarded./
*he promises must have value, a .value/ which the law recogni8es.
(riti9ue of the traditional view
-rofessor Atiyah has argued:
*he truth is that the courts have never set out to create a doctrine of consideration. *hey
have been concerned with the much more practical problem of deciding in the course of
litigation whether a particular promise in a particular case should be enforced....When the
courts found a sufficient reason for enforcing a promise they enforced it; and when they found
that for one reason or another it was undesirable to enforce a promise, they did not enforce it.
It seems highly probable that when the courts first used the word consideration they meant
no than there was a reason for the enforcement of a promise. If the consideration was
good, this meant that the court found sufficient reason for enforcing the promise.
Atiyah, *he Rise and ,all of ,reedom of (ontract <$%6=>.
While Atiyah argues that there are other .good reasons/ for the enforcement of contractual
promises *reitel continues to contend that the traditional benefit?detriment analysis serves
best as a mechanism for contractual enforcement.
In general Atiyah/s work was concerned with finding the concepts of )ustice lying behind the
)uridical techni9ues of private common law, concept which he regarded as the real motivators
for the way in which cases were decided. *reitel on the other hand believed that the law of
contract could be described accurately in terms of a coherent set of rules, and his te7tbook is
the result of that approach.
2.Fauziah wrote a proposal to sell his new plasma ! inches television to sherry "or
#$1%&!!. 'hen sherry received the letter% she wrote bac( saying that she agrees to
that proposal and will pay o"" the purchase price within one wee( "rom date o" this
later. )wo day letter%sherry's husband had deposited the said purchase price into
"auziah's account. however "auziah then re"used to trans"er the ownership o" the
plasma television on the reason that she only had proposal to sell the said television to
sherry and not her husband.
*ntroduction
,or a contract to arise in the circumstances of the 9uestion, one of the parties has to make
and offer which is duly accepted by the other. If there is an offer followed by an acceptance
there will be a contract between the parties.
*ssue
when a person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto,the proposal is said
accepted,a proposal when accepted becomes a promise.
)he +aw
,ection 2 -./ Act 10&!
states that the contract is @an agreement enforceable by law @. *his means that all
agreements are not enforceable by law is not a contract.
,ection 1! -1/ o" the 1ontracts Act 10&!
has allocated that @All agreements are contracts if made on the free consent of the parties is
entitled to contract, for a lawful consideration terror a legitimate purpose.@ *his section shows
that an agreement is a contract that can be enforced by law if made by the parties
entitled to contract, with the consent given freely and return as well as the purpose of the
agreement shall be valid in law. Affers made manifest in the form of oral or written while the
offer is in the form of implicit meaning bids deemed or implied from the behavior of a person.
#e"er case2