Unformatted text preview: Conclusion: Although it was an oral agreement, there was a clear intention (accountant/lawyer) present. Therefore, Jaz has to continue sharing the royalties with the band. 1. (a) Issue: Can he enforce the promise? Rule of Law: Past consideration (Rosolla v Thomas), consideration cannot be past. Agreement is made after the consideration. Conclusion: There is no valid agreement. (b) Issue: Is the consideration sufficient? Rule of Law: Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Promise not to sue – Case (Wigan v Edwards). Application: They have a legal agreement. Conclusion: Alex must pay the $5000. (c) Illusory: (Eastwood v Canyon) or (White v Bluett) (d) (Re Casey’s Patents) (e) Make the boss sign the deed. (f) Issue: Is the consideration valid? Rule of Law: Excretory, but the agreement is still valid....
View Full Document
- Spring '13
- Contract Law, Intention, domestic agreement