“He” is the person who provides consideration or the variation as opposed to the one who doesn’t.
The doctrine of consideration at stake is that a variation to a contract requires consideration from both parties. (Unless the contract allows for it’s own variation. Or the variation is executed as a deed. Or issues of estoppel arise. Or it’s under New Zealand ...
Who is he and him? The creditor or debtor?
It means the creditor or, accordingly, the party who seeks to expand his entitlement(s) or to secure at least some part thereof.
Notice that a previous sentence in that excerpt has as head of the subject a "person", the one who seeks "to induce another to fulfill his contractual duty" or "to induce his debtor to ...
"He" in this case refers to the creditor.
Let's see if I remember my contract law
In Foakes v Beer, the debtor was in financial difficulty, so offered to pay the creditor some of the full debt right now, and the rest of it later on, and also asked not to be charged interest for paying later.
The creditor agreed to this arrangement. However, later he ...
Why this is nonsense: The “nonsense” comes from applying the legal doctrine of consideration. Contract law requires the parties to a contract to exchange something of real value. The something that is exchanged is called the consideration. If there is no consideration, there is no contract, just promises and gifts, which courts will not enforce.
If the rule is that a contract variation (like "the price changes from £100,000 to £200,000") is enforceable if there is a corresponding variation on the other side (like "the deliverables change from '10 widgets' to '10 widgets and a peppercorn") but not if they don't, then that appears to be a nonsense to me too.
If you forget to specify the "and a ...
The “apparently formalistic procedural reasons” is the arbitrary requirement that applications be lodged “promptly”
If the conduct the subject of the review is clearly illegal and no third parties would be adversely affected by bring it to an end, the court is likely to waive the “promptly” requirement.
The first type is the power of agency, the second is the power to coerce
The first type of power is available to anyone, not just governments, and is simply the power to do (or not do) whatever the law allows. Anyone can set up a library or buy land from a willing seller as in the examples.
The second type is only available to government and is the power ...
Presumably the fear was that a law or policy governing the public authority might say one thing, but if an official assured a member of the public to the contrary, then the MoP could then require the authority to comply with the official assurances instead of their policy. Thus the official could unilaterally force the public authority to change its ...
Nate nailed it. It's all about the difference between the loss to the defendant from having to perform, and the loss to the plaintiff from the breach.
I am only writing to add quotations from Lord Hoffman's decision in Cooperative Insurance showing that he meant exactly what Nate conjectured he meant.
In his opinion, Lord Hoffman points out that ordering ...
This is a guess, but perhaps they have in mind a situation like the following.
Suppose Alice and Bob have a contract in which Alice has promised to do some thing, call it X. It will cost Alice £5000 to do X, and she doesn't want to do it. If she doesn't do it, Bob will incur losses of £1000.
Now if specific performance were always ordered, Bob could go ...
That the schedules are sent in different emails is almost entirely irrelevant provided the schedule is adequately named and referred to.
If Its still a concern you could mention the email is 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. Also, from a technical POV there should be no difficulty attaching 2 files to a single email.
Can I refer to another contract in a contract?
Yes. However, your description suggests that you might be better off by using two separate contracts.
Having your client sign two contracts instead of just one is not really an inconvenience, whereas mixing or cross-referencing contracts might needlessly convolute the task of ascertaining the parties' rights ...
It may be a breach of the NHS Constitution for England
You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you.
You have the right to expect local decisions on funding of other drugs and treatments to be made rationally following a proper ...
Nominal consideration always suffices
If you and I agree that you will sell me your original Van Gough (last sold for USD 83.1 million) for USD 1, then barring any other issues with the contract, you will sell me your original Van Gough for USD 1.
This is clearly not adequate consideration for the painting but it is sufficient.
Gilchrist Vending v Sedley ...
I don't believe it is contradictory. Some kinds of injury are inherently difficult to calculate (e.g. damage to reputation caused by slander) but the judge or jury, as the case may be, will review the evidence and do the best they can. Lord Reed says as much in paragraph 38 of his judgment.
... and as a practical matter, it appears the damages, in this ...
the defendants had not pleaded such a defence
The author is opining that if the defendants had raised such a defence it would have collapsed because of the fraud exclusion. Since they didn’t, the judge didn’t have to deal with it.
The loss is difficult to quantify, and some elements of it may be inherently incapable of precise measurement. Nevertheless, it is a familiar type of loss, for which damages are frequently awarded.
It’s hard to value and bits of it may be impossible to value. However, it’s a type of damage which money is often awarded in compensation.
I don't think there is a typo.
I think the main question is whether specific performance should be enforced against D, that is, whether D should be ordered to grant the lease to C. The trial court said no, reasoning that if they did so, then they should also enforce specific performance against C, i.e. ordering C to perform the renovations himself - and ...
Being "illegal" does not mean that it is a crime. It is possibly illegal, but not necessarily a crime. It could be breach of contract or defamation, neither of which are legal. The former case might not even involve the courts, and in the latter case would involve a lawsuit but not prosecution.
It might be a crime under law outlawing hate speech, Public ...
Defamatory and offensive are not the same
“He is a child molester” is defamatory and illegal (unless he is, of course).
“She is a two-faced f___ing b___h with the morals of an alley cat and the integrity of a politician” is offensive and legal.
Neither is a crime.