Marcus v. Elsie: In this scenario, concerns past consideration, due to the promise of £300 Elsie made to Marcus after he repaired the smoking chimney, and later refused to pay him. The definition of consideration was established by Lord Lush CJ, where he portrayed consideration as ”some right, interest, profit or benefit, accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other.’
Past consideration is not a good consideration, also there are exception to this rule ‘if the act done at the request of the promisor, the both aware that the previous performance was to be paid for by cash or conferment of a benefit, then a promise made subsequent to an act performed by the promisee will be enforceable.’
The fact of these scenario shows that there was promise of £300 made to Marcus for repairing the chimney problem by Elsie. Nevertheless, the promise was past, because Marcus had already done the work before Elsie made the promise which is not sufficient for consideration to be valid. In other hands, the work would have been a valid consideration, if Marcus had done the work at the Elsie’s request, because there was no request from Elsie that might led him to loss his claim. Also, it would have been a successful claim for Marcus, if they both understood the fact that the work would be paid for, but due to the absence of request and unclear understanding before the commencement of the work by Marcus, it might result to invalid consideration.
Therefore, Marcus might not able to claim for £300 promise to him by Elsie, because he did the work out of the Elsie’s request and the court will not enforce it has a valid consideration, except if Elsie is willingly to pay him the £300.
Rosie v. Safina
Here concerns part payment of a debt, based on the fact that Safina was able to paid £5,000 out of £8,000, she owed to Marcus for fitting new bathroom in apple cottage and later request to accompany with her ruby diamond necklace in full satisfaction which Marcus agreed to and later desire to receive the balance.
A part payment of a debt cannot be view has good consideration for a promise to release the debt in full. In other for the lesser payment of sum to be considered as good consideration, it must move from the promisor, the lesser sum must paid before the due date, it must paid with chattel, horse rather than money and the payment must be made in a different destination.
In considering the fact of this scenario, it is clear that part payment of a debt was made, but, however, the request to pay the lesser amount in full satisfaction was made by the promisee, instead, of promisor. Therefore, if a request to pay lesser amount in discharge the full balance was not from the creditor’s request, it will not possible to constitute a good consideration, because there has to be a benefit to the creditor for accepting the lesser amount in full satisfaction of the whole debt. However, the payment has to be made before the due date, in other to consider has good satisfaction to forgo the whole balance. Apparently, there was no agreement on when the whole debt should be paid and Marcus did not request Safina to pay him a lesser amount in other to consider it has good consideration. But because there was no agreement in relation to the due date of the payment, Safina will likely pay the remaining balance despite of using her ruby diamond necklace has a request to Marcus.
Also whether the money was paid in different destination, actually, the location of where the payment of £5,000 made did not stated in the fact and was unknown. However, Marcus can still sue for the full amount of the debt, because the promise by a creditor to accept a smaller amount in discharge of a larger amount is not binding. In other hands, the promise can become enforceable if assumable that Safina go beyond the existing obligation at the request of Marcus, by paying in kind or in different form, it can then consider has good consideration.
Reference to this, Marcus might be successful in his claim due to the absence of the exception to the rule of part payment of a debt and the request of paying lesser amount, which is not in request of the creditor.
Marcus v. Gray and Joan
In this scenario, will are consider part payment of a debt, precisely to £30,000 paid to Marcus ought of £100,000 agreed has price for renovating Caldwell Court for Gray. Also, will are looking at part payment made by third party between Joan and Marcus, if whether it qualified to discharge the responsibility from Gray not to pay the remaining balance of £70,000.
Having mention earlier in relation to part payment of debt that is not good by the court, except the debtor go beyond the existing obligation has the request of the promisor by paying kind or in different form. It therefore argued that, the payment of £30,000 paid to Marcus rather than £100,000 did not accordance with the principles lay down in Pinnel’s Case. Also the payment cannot constitute a valid consideration, because it was made out of promisor’s request and was not made with chattel rather than money or in a different location. Therefore Marcus has the right to receive the full payment, due to the absence request by him and there will be no benefit for him to receive the lesser amount in full satisfaction.
Where a payment is made by third party, can it consider as sufficient to discharge the full balance?
Actually, where someone making a payment consequently for releasing the obligation owed by another, this will constitute to a valid consideration because the current obligation to make a payment was not owed by the debtor, rather than the third party. In other hands, it cannot be considered as good consideration, because cheque is no longer considered as sufficient. Also the cheque of £35,000 send to Marcus can be consider has insufficient consideration, due to the statement of the letter that ”this is Joan’s the final offer” it was synonymous to economic duress and if Marcus failed to accept the letter, it might likely lose completely.
In advising Marcus whether he could recover £300 promise him by Elsie, we most likely not succeeded, because it a past consideration which is not enforceable and if assuming that Marcus satisfied the exception to the rule, he would have successful no his claim. Marcus will likely recover his balance from Safina, because the rules in Pinnel’s Case was not present and there was no request for lesser payment from the creditor. However, the claim Marcus and Gray might recover, if only the letter send to Marcus was not accepted by him and he did not cash the money. But if presumably that Marcus cash the money, then Gray might likely not have to pay him anymore.
Rosie v. Anthony and Victor
In this is scenario, will are looking at misrepresentation, due to the Cassandra that Rosie bought at £500 from Anthony and taking the Cassandra home, Rosie notice that the Cassandra was very restless and brought a claim against Anthony in other to recover her money because he did not reveal the illness of the Cassandra to her.
Misrepresentation is a false statement of fact which induces the representee to enter into a contract. In other to constitute an actionable misrepresentation, there must be a false statement of fact. It must not be a statement of opinion, must not be a statement of intention and must not be a statement of law.
In other for Anthony to be liable for actionable misrepresentation, Rosie must prove that she had been induce to enter into the contract, because of untrue statement of existing or past certainty which is address to her by Anthony before or at the period of enter into the contract.
Under the present situation in this scenario, it clearly shows that there was a contract between Rosie and Anthony. But, however, there was no statement between the parties that could be viewed as false statement of fact that can induce Rosie to enter into a contract, than when Anthony asked Rosie if she will take a looked at the Cassandra before buying it and Rosie replied him that the one that won ‘Crufts Dog Shows Last Year’ which cannot be classified as actionable misrepresentation or cause reliance. In other hands, there can be a misrepresentation, if only Rosie can prove that Anthony constitute an actionable misrepresentation due to his Silence, even though it is not amount a good misrepresentation. Nevertheless, this can only be done if Rosie shows that Anthony owe her a duty to disclose fact in relation to the Cassandra situation, which may influence her either to buying or not to buying the Cassandra. It can also be argued that there was a statement of opinion or law despite the fact of not constitute an actionable misrepresentation. But, however, Anthony have not say anything than asking Rosie a question.
Nevertheless, Anthony should have liable for actionable misrepresentation, if only Rosie can prove under fiduciary relationship, exist where someone has set a trust in someone else, whereby that individual, having been conscious of such information, is under an obligation not to uncover details gained up from such a relationship. If these can be prove by Rosie, the court might probably takes a different approach in looking at the remedy that could available. In other hands if Rosie is not, her claim might likely lead to dismiss or look for other alternative remedy for Rosie.
In relation to issues between Rosie and Victor, whether Rosie can brought a claim on Victor for failure to warned her relation to the side effect of the drug and whether she can claim for damage that she sustained due to Victor’s failure.
This can amount to misrepresentation only, if Rosie can prove that the statement of Victor was a false statement of fact that induce her to buy the drug.
On the fact of this scenario, the statement made by Victor seems to be insufficient to amount to misrepresentation, on the grounds that he was actually express his opinion base on the side effect that the drug might cause to the Cassandra. Notwithstanding, it is likely for Victor statement to be viewed as a statement of fact rather than opinion statement, because he was in right position to know how the drug ‘Braslim’ that he prescribed to Rosie work’s.
Also, Victor statement could amount to actionable misrepresentation because, where the state of mind of the representor was saying something else instead of intention, he has made a misrepresentation of fact in the sight of the law, on the grounds that ”the statement of a man’s mind as much a fact as the state of his digestion.” Bowen LJ.
As was expressed above , that Victor’s advice can be viewed as mere of opinion which cannot amount to representation of fact. It is held that where there is extraordinary fact for both parties to known, the statement made by one party and address to the next, it actually opinion statement; however where an opinion statement is made by the person who knows the truths vastly improved than the other one includes all the time a statement of material actuality.
Remedy available for Victor is under section 2 (1) Misrepresentation Act 1967, a negligence misrepresentation is a statement made without sensible reason for faith in its truth. Unless Victor can demonstrate he had sensible grounds to accept the fact that the statement were valid. On the other hands, Rosie can demonstrate that a negligence misrepresentation was made to him by Victor, Rosie is might qualified for the remedy of putting the agreement aside or to claim the damages. Any suffered of loss is figured by tort measure.