Law 2101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Metropolitan Railway, Market Price, Canadian Prairies

• School: Western University
• Department: Law
• Course: Law 2101
• Professor: Mysty Sybil Clapton

Document Summary

Hamer v. sidway (1891: x p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ised to pa(cid:455) (cid:374)ephe(cid:449) ,(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1004) if he did(cid:374)"t d(cid:396)i(cid:374)k, s(cid:373)oke, s(cid:449)ea(cid:396) o(cid:396) ga(cid:373)(cid:271)le u(cid:374)til age. Tobias v. dick and t. eaton co (1937: t entered into agreement with d, u(cid:374)de(cid:396) the te(cid:396)(cid:373)s of the ag(cid:396)ee(cid:373)e(cid:374)t t had a(cid:374) e(cid:454)(cid:272)lusi(cid:448)e (cid:396)ight to sell d"s p(cid:396)odu(cid:272)ts i(cid:374) the. No: t had not promised anything in return. Wood v. lucy, lady duff-gordon (1917: lady duff-gordon and wood entered into an agreement, under their agreement wood had the exclusive right to use her name on clothing designs. If you imply this term, the whole contract then makes sense. What do the cases tell us: consideration involves something coming from the promise (thomas, consideration must be requested by the promisor. It must be the reason for the promise (allegheny: a promise can be consideration for another promise (thorp, dunlop, consideration must not be illusory.