CONSIDERATION

By nurirdina105 | Updated: April 3, 2021, 5:08 p.m.

Slideshow Video

SHARE THE AWESOMENESS

Other

create your own animated videos for free

_abc cc

* Powtoon is not liable for any 3rd party content used. It is the responsibility of each user to comply with 3rd party copyright laws.

Embed code

Select a size, the embed code changes based on your selection.

_abc Powtoon Transcript

CASE STUDY
EXECUTORY CONSIDERATION
(K. Murugesu v Nandarajah)
The appellant promised to sell off his house for RM26,000 to the respondent BUT he failed to do so.
(K. Murugesu v Nandarajah)
The appellant promised to sell off his house for RM26,000 to the respondent BUT he failed to do so.
The respondent sued the appellant for his refusal of selling the house.
Since the case was an executory consideration, each promise is the consideration for the other.
EXECUTED CONSIDERATION
(Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.)
A medical firm advertised that its smoke ball can cure people's flu.
(Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.)
A medical firm advertised that its smoke ball can cure people's flu.
If it did not cure the buyer's flu, they can claim $100 from the firm.
When a buyer decides to claim for the $100, the firm refuses to pay
In the end, the medical firm had to pay to the buyer because the promise made was a contract.
PAST CONSIDERATION
(Re McArdle)
A woman lived together with three of her grown-up children.
One of the children's wife decorated the house and her husband promised to pay her some money.
(Re McArdle)
A woman lived together with three of her grown-up children.
One of the children's wife decorated the house and her husband promised to pay her some money.
They signed a contract. However, the promise is invalid because it is a past consideration.
NATURAL LOVE & AFFECTION
(Tan Soh Sim & Ors v Tan Saw Keow)
A dying woman stated her intentions which was to leave all her properties to her 4 adopted children.
(Tan Soh Sim & Ors v Tan Saw Keow)
A dying woman stated her intentions which was to leave all her properties to her 4 adopted children.
The woman's siblings renounced their rights for the 4 children.
However, the contract was still not valid because the parties related were not in near relation to each other as the children were only adopted.
THANK YOU

CONSIDERATION

Copy this link to share with friends and colleagues:

WELCOME TO POWTOON!