Law 2101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 25: Ryan, Crabb V Arun Dc, Contract
Document Summary
Dunlop pneumatic tyre v. slefridge (1915) (cid:862)a(cid:374) a(cid:272)t o(cid:396) fo(cid:396)(cid:271)ea(cid:396)a(cid:374)(cid:272)e of o(cid:374)e pa(cid:396)t(cid:455), o(cid:396) the p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ise the(cid:396)eof, is the p(cid:396)i(cid:272)e fo(cid:396) (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h the p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ise of the othe(cid:396) is (cid:271)ought a(cid:374)d the p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ise thus gi(cid:448)e(cid:374) fo(cid:396) (cid:448)alue is e(cid:374)fo(cid:396)(cid:272)ea(cid:271)le. (cid:863) Thorp v thorp (1702) (cid:862)[w]e(cid:396)e the doi(cid:374)g of a thi(cid:374)g (cid:449)ill (cid:271)e a good (cid:272)o(cid:374)side(cid:396)atio(cid:374), a p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ise to do that thi(cid:374)g (cid:449)ill (cid:271)e so too. (cid:863) Westlake v. adams (1858) (cid:862)it is a(cid:374) ele(cid:373)e(cid:374)ta(cid:396)(cid:455) p(cid:396)i(cid:374)(cid:272)iple, that the law will not enter into an enquiry as to the adequacy of the (cid:272)o(cid:374)side(cid:396)atio(cid:374). (cid:863) Allegheny college v. national chautauqua county bank of jamestown (1927) The detriment and promise must be mutually related, i. e. the detriment suffered must be requested by the other side. Yes: the (cid:374)ephe(cid:449) ga(cid:448)e up his li(cid:271)e(cid:396)t(cid:455) to do these thi(cid:374)gs o(cid:374) the st(cid:396)e(cid:374)gth of his u(cid:374)(cid:272)le"s p(cid:396)o(cid:373)ise (ex. he suffered a legal detriment)
