Aşağıda bir kısmını gördüğünüz bu dokümana sadece Profesyonel +
pakete abone olan üyelerimiz erişebilir.
Sayfa 54F.Criticality of request
The decided cases demonstrate that the courts will be more prone to finding the presence…
“I am glad to hear of your intended marriage with E. N.; and, as I promised to assist you at starting, I am happy to tell you that I will pay to you 150l. yearly during my life and until your annual income derived from your profession of a Chancery barrister shall amount to 600 guineas. Your ever affectionate uncle, A.”…
The uncle’s executors resisted the claim for payment, alleging the absence of consideration.…
“The circumstances are, that the plaintiff had made an engagement to marry one Ellen Nicholl, that his uncle had promised to assist him at starting,—by which, as I understand the words, he meant on commencing his married life. Then the letter containing the promise declared on is sent, to specify what that assistance would be, namely, 150l. per annum during the uncle’s life, and until the plaintiff’s professional income should be acknowledged by him to exceed 600 guineas per annum; and the declaration avers, that the plaintiff, relying on this promise, without any revocation on the part of the uncle, did marry Ellen Nicholl. Now, do these facts shew that the promise was in consideration either of a loss to be sustained by the plaintiff or a benefit to be derived from the plaintiff to the uncle, at his, the uncle’s, request? My answer is in the affirmative…. Secondly, do these facts shew a benefit derived from the plaintiff to the uncle, at his request? In answering again in the affirmative, I am at liberty to consider the relation in which the parties stood and the interest in the settlement of his nephew which the uncle declares. The marriage primarily affects the parties thereto; but in a secondary degree it may be an object of interest to a near relative, and in that sense a benefit to him. This benefit is also derived from the plaintiff at the uncle’s request. If…
In similar fashion, it was held in Combe v Combe…
“I cannot find any evidence of any intention by the husband that the wife should forbear from applying to the court for maintenance, or, in other words, any request by the husband, express or implied, that the wife should so forbear. He left her to apply if she wished to do so. She did not do so, and I am not surprised, because it is very unlikely that the Divorce Court would have then made any order in her favour, seeing that she had a bigger income than her husband. Her forbearance was not intended by him, nor was it done at his request. It was therefore no consideration.”…
E.Forbearance of legal rights
G.Past consideration