Mr. Defendant promised that he would pay 6-00 per month as part of a maintenance contract in return for his wife`s promise «to behave soberly and in a respectable, orderly and virtuous manner, provided that she does not do anything that is subject to contempt or derision of hatred. HEROED that it wasn`t just a promise to do the right thing already – it was a promise that involved the task of a certain degree of freedom – it was a good reflection. The dissenting judge found that it was too vague to be considered a consideration. But you have to ask yourself how a person can decide what they want in exchange for the promise, and then turn around and say it`s not a reflection. Historically, there is little difference between the common law`s reflection and the Roman cause. But in the 19th century, there was a change of motive and confidence in good business. Thus, in Thomas (1842), we distinguish the reason for consideration – which is something of value that moves from the plaintiff. Currie v Misa: The most famous case with regard to the nature of the reflection is Chappell v Nestle, in which Lord Somervell of Harrow felt that a «peppercorn» could be a valuable consideration (if the brider requires it), even if the brider did not like peppers and would throw corn (note, but this adequacy of the counterparty may be relevant in other respects , in particular evidence of unacceptable coercion or hardening). who can cancel the contract. Other important cases in which reflections are discussed are the same: as has already been said, taking into account the price set by the promisor for the promise given.
price, in this sense, is used in a broad sense; it must not be monetary, or even monetary; While it requires a certain «disadvantage» in the name of promise, this disadvantage may take the form of a renunciation of an otherwise granted freedom (for example, the promise. B to quit smoking or study every Saturday night) and the Promisor does not need to get any tangible benefits. In Carlill`s complaint, for example, the court found that it would be sufficient for Ms. Carlill to suffer the disadvantage of using the smokeball in the prescribed manner, even if the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was of no use (it was obiter, since the court found that the company had in fact received a benefit). Given his commitment (direct or indirect), he is not in favour of the promise to give and heed it – but, as noted above, it can take virtually all forms and, importantly, not be of a value comparable to that of the promise for which it is made. Look at the problem of the decision whether a particular situation is a conditional gift or a promise, supported by a counterparty, if the condition of Promise 1 is fulfilled. James promises to rake his uncle`s court in exchange for his uncle`s promise to pay him a hundred dollars. In this exchange, the nephew offers his uncle an advantage, a tidy court, in exchange for his uncle`s promise to pay him a hundred dollars.
(b) if the doctrine of change of sola works (this is not strictly an exception; the doctrine must impose promises in limited circumstances where it would be unfair not to do so – but it does not really replace the scrutiny. See below.