LLB Law - Contract Law - Case Study Example

The offer was communicated to Mr Taylor at the price agreed of 35,000 to be payable 24 March, the costumes to be delivered on the same day. Studying this case one must also remember that the definition of consideration is extremely important and relevant. In Currie v Misa (1875) the definition of consideration is clearly understood as a right, interest, profit or benefit to one party, or some forbearance, detriment suffered or undertaken by another. Consideration is the normal 'badge of enforcement' in English Law.

Taking a further look at this case the consideration was the amount of money that Mr Baron offered to Mr Taylor in exchange for the goods at the promised time. However Mr Taylor suffered detriment when the full amount of money was not paid. Consideration was given when Mr Baron asked for all all the costumes for the waiters to be delivered before the club opened. Mr Taylor met all the requirements for the contract to be valued whereas Mr Baron did not fulfill the requirements of the contract.

The case also deals with executed consideration, for this to be the case there are certain criteria that must be satisfied. In LAMPLEIGH v BRAITWAIT (1615) it was held that the act must have been requested by the promisor. As seen in Mr Baron's case he made the request for the costumes. As per RE CASEY's PATENT (1892) there was an understanding that payment would be made once all the costumes were delivered to Mr Baron for the full amount that he promised. Mr Baron did not pay the full amount he promised on delivery of the goods.

Consequently he breached the terms of the contract and Mr Taylor suffered damage. There was an intention to be bound as in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. Other cases have studied the laws of intention such as; Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros [1923]There was a clear intention on the part of Mr Baron to create legal relations since he communicated his needs when he found out that Mr Taylor's staff were far behind with their work and that the costumes may not be finished by opening night.

Mr Baron clearly wanted the work carried out and clearly communicated the amount of money he wanted in return for the goods. When Mr Baron realized that the goods might not be ready for opening time he communicated a new agreement that he would pay a further 3000 only if the goods were ready in time for opening. This resulted in Mr Taylor requesting all of his workers to design Mr Baron's costumes exclusively. Therefore Mr Taylor was running at a loss if Mr Baron did not pay the full amount since he could not ask his workers to work on anything else during this time period.

This resulted in damages to Mr Taylor and his company when Mr Baron refused to keep his promise and pay the full amount.This relates to the decision made in WILLIAMS v ROFFEY BROS(1991), where it was held that where a party to an existing