An agreement is not enforceable unless the parties intended it to be lega

The doctrine of consideration is said to be one of the most difficult concepts to understand in contract law. In simple terms, consideration means that a person cannot get something for nothing. Consideration requires an exchange of something of value in the eyes of the law. Consideration or “quid pro quo” is what each party puts up to support their side of the agreement. Consideration is defined “An act of forbearance of one part or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.” Consideration must not be past, need not be adequate, merely sufficient, must move from the promisee, and finally must not be illegal. In the case of a unilateral contract, in which one party makes a commitment without receiving in return an exress engagement from the other, this exchange may be an act or forbearance. In bilateral contracts, it is a promise. To better understand the doctrine of consideration, look at the case of Thomas v Thomas 1842. A widow was allowed under the will of her late husband to occupy a house. The executors of the will allowed her and charged £1 rent. Later, the executors refused to let her stay in the house arguing that the £1 was an unrealistically low rent and not adequate consideration. The court decided that consideration need not be adequate, as long as it is sufficient under the eyes of the law.

One must also remember that there is a difference between an offer from an invitation to treat. An invitation is not an offer that someone can accept to form a legally binding contract. Examples of invitations to treat are advertisements, catalogues, and show window displays. In the case of Fisher v Bell 1961, the shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his store window. The tag on the knife read “Ejector Knife – 4 shillings”. The shopkeeper was charged with offering for sale a flick knife contrary to the provisions of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act. The courts ruled that the said displaying of the flick knife was merely an invitation to treat. Therefore it was not an offer to sell and th

Some topics in this essay:
Edwards Skyways, Felthouse Bindley, , Balfour Balfour, Ball Co, Weapons Act, Legal Intent, Thomas Thomas, Fisher Bell, legally binding, legal relations, create legal, create legal relations, terms offer, flick knife, counter offer, intention create, intention create legal, valid acceptance, makes counter offer, offer accepted, legal relations agreement, relations agreement, agreement legally binding,