Talk:Consideration in English law

This article was listed for cleanup by Wikipedia. I have undertaken a major cleanup of this article but it probably could do with more tweaking. At least it is beginning to look as if it might be a Wikipedia article. Since I have had enough of this project, I invite others to wade in and improve it further. MPLX/MH 06:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge

 * Do Not Merge I would go as far as to say that there should be separate articles for each jurisdiction when a certain area of law is being covered. To cover all the nuances in a doctrine between jurisdictions would make an individual article too big and unwieldy.Thehappyhobo (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge Consideration at UK and Australian Law, although somewhat similar to American Law, is distinguished and has subtle nuances within it that can serve to confuse the lay reader. Separating the two will be a more prudent measure.


 * Do Not Merge Whilst similar there are succinct differences and different legal jurisdictions should not be clubbed together. This should go for other legal topics within Wikipedia if it is to become a genuinely useful resource.


 * To merge these two articles would be daft, many people use this as a source for academic work, to merge the American and British versions together would create confusion. There are often quite distinct differences. I second that.
 * Please don't merge these articles. It's very important that people understand the difference between the laws of the jurisdictions, and I feel that merging English and US legal doctrines will lead to nothing but confusion.


 * I agree that this should be merged with 'Consideration.'


 * Do Not Merge As a matter of law, US and English law are, while similar, obviously and necessarily seperate. Because of this, I think that they should be addressed seperately. Cpaliga 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge English law and US law as regards consideration have very different development and the merging of the two articles can make lay reader confusing (as the principles of consideration itself are confusing enought!) --Sunnyhsli 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge. In my judgement, this would be dangerous. Consideration under English Law and US Law are conceptually distinct and governed by their own cases. It does not serve any use to 'merge' the two together, for then the analysis would, in my judgement, be confused and muddled when clear analysis demands separations and distinctions to be made, so the two different conceptions can be understood better in their own terms. EM (2005). A small and brief subsection labelled "Comparison With Other Jurisdictions" might be more appropriate.


 * Do Not Merge. Many students will be confused if you merge this already complicated subject. :)


 * Do Not Merge. Absolutely not. Merging these articles would be a big mistake, and will only lead to confusion.


 * Do Not Merge. This is a complex concept; merging the articles would create unneccessary confusion for the layreader and students of Law. Iolar Iontach 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge Quite clearly different jurisdictions therefore need separate pages!


 * Do Not Merge Ascertaining the state of the law is complicated enough, without merging different jurisdictions.


 * Do Not Merge For God's sake, do not merge. If you want to see what happens when you write about a certain notion in the different jurisdictions in the same article, look here: Negligence. Piotrnikitin (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another merger proposal
See talk:consideration for this. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the stub on the Pre Existing Duty Rule and the article on Consideration under American Law should be merged with this article. The article on pre-existing duty is purported to be about American law, but gives very little added value to what is said here. In my view it would be sufficient just to state in this article "Similar rules are recognised in American law" and make an appropriate reference to the USC. The article on Consideration under American law again provides little information that demonstrates that there are any differences with English law, or indeed any divergencies between the laws of the various states.

This article should be renamed "Consideration (Common law)" and expanded to include some cases from Commonwealth and US jurisdictions.

I think that the two should be merged to give diverse views of the doctrine under both constitutions. It is always good to acquire and expand on one's knowledge. That can only be done when we have explored each situation in its individual settings and compare and contrast. However, I think that each should be clearly labeled to avoid confusion as to which structure each constitution follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.231.110 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They should NOT be merged! Many students use wiki for their assignments, and if you merge these sections it would make their lives that much more complicated. When they read and incorporate information into their assignments, they would no longer have the peace of mind that it was completely applicable to their jurisdiction. For this reason many might stop using wiki altogether in favour of legal journals and so forth. Those that continue to use wiki then would be required to nit-pick every detail to ensure it related to their jurisdictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.143.45 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a first year law student, who used this article to obtain a general overview of consideration, I am telling you that merging these articles together would be insane and incredibly unhelpful to readers. 138.253.201.185 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge- Currently we have two useful articles rather than one useless one. Can we keep it that way please Francium12 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Don't understand the opposition - we have one article on Contract law - why do we have two separate articles on one area of contract law?  Good editing should be able to accommodate the differences and the similarities. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not merge. The article on Contract law would benefit from being separated by jurisdiction too. For someone trying to work out the state of English contract law, the article is unclear and potentially misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.139.11 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not merge - re Contract law - the Contract law article should be general and comparative then there should be articles for Contract (England and Wales), Contract (France) etc with those titles for easy "piping". The title of this article should be Consideration (England and Wales) so that I can type consideration (England and Wales) .Cutler (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Merge we need to be able to distinguish between the two merging them will only lead to confusion for specifically requiring information one area of law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.190.164 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE- this is a good article do not change it to make it difficult! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.28 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not merge - this is one of the few decent articles on English law and deserves better than to be lumped together to form a generic mass which is not going to be helpful to anyone except those who want to reduce the number of articles with "consideration" in their title. Please create a separate page for Commonwealth cases, they have no place here. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not merge - but even so, all you students who are relying on Wikipedia should be ashamed of yourselves! You are not general readers - you are studying to be experts in the field. You have libraries full of proper books, so go and use them. :p Westmorlandia (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

internal link: without reference ( red link ). Adding it.
The red link is: Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999.
 * Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in Full; I gonna write this one at the article. This one came from the section References, at the article: Privity_of_contract. Today, here ( Consideration under English law ), there isn't one References section, so I do what I said..
 * Another one ( that I got first ), is an external link from http://books.google.es/books, it is this one.
 * This book: (( page 262 ) International Trade Law; Autor: Indira Carr, Peter Stone ). --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What was a red link, now it isn't. Because, then, I've done, too, a redirection (Redirect to page section) :
 * from Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999,
 * to Privity of contract. So you can see there for the redirection:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 the external link with the name: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in Full  --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Consideration does not need to go to the promisor
The article currently states:

"Consideration for a particular promise exists where some right, interest, profit or benefit accrues (or will accrue) to the promisor as a direct result of some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promisee."

As per Tweddle v Atkinson, I think the first part of this is misleading. I think it should say:

"Consideration for a particular promise exists where the promisee agrees to give, suffer or undertake some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility in exchange for the promise."

Does anyone disagree (or have a better formulation of the principle)? Westmorlandia (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainty
The "Certainty" section currently reads:

"Consideration is sufficient where it amounts to something that is capable of expression in economic terms. In White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36, Bluett, when sued by his father’s executors for an outstanding debt to his father, claimed that his father had promised to discharge him from it in return for him stopping complaining about property distribution. The Court held that the cessation of complaints was of no economic value; thus, Bluett’s father had received no real consideration for the promise, and the debt was unenforceable at law."

This doesn't seem to be anything to do with certainty, but with the nature and sufficiency of consideration. I think that perhaps this is a question of amending the title rather than the wording but, sgain, please let me know if I am missing something. I hate to think that the marks of the students above who are relying on this article may be suffering as a result of inaccuracies here... Westmorlandia (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably accurate (though maybe ambiguous); the uncertain terms of White v Bluett in question led it to being classed as unsatisfactory consideration; any promise or consideration given must be certain in the conferred benefit. RichsLaw (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I do think the article in general could do with a good rewrite, and some citing of sources. The focus of it doesn't seem to be very theory based. RichsLaw (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rationalisation of consideration pages
There are currently at least three pages on this topic, with some inevitable overlaps. They are this page Consideration under English law, plus Consideration under American law, and Consideration . I suggest that the Consideration  page becomes a much shorter summary page, with directions to the other two, which then survive with improvements. This page, "Consideration under English law" page needs a lot of work! (I'll post a version of this message on the other pages). Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of situation to which I would apply Chesterton's fence. Note that the article currently at Consideration in English law used to just be Consideration, but was moved to allow for the creation of a more generic description of the concept. bd2412  T 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The parent Consideration article seems actually pretty short at this point. II  | (t - c) 14:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)