Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/php-tmp/upload) is not within the allowed path(s): (VIRTUAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT) in /usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/review/templates/infinitelysimple/index.php(28) : eval()'d code(1) : regexp code(1) : eval()'d code on line 348

Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/wp-config.php) is not within the allowed path(s): (VIRTUAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT) in /usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/review/templates/infinitelysimple/index.php(28) : eval()'d code(1) : regexp code(1) : eval()'d code on line 361

Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/local/www/webs/cz/wp-config.php) is not within the allowed path(s): (VIRTUAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT) in /usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/review/templates/infinitelysimple/index.php(28) : eval()'d code(1) : regexp code(1) : eval()'d code on line 361

Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/local/www/webs/wp-config.php) is not within the allowed path(s): (VIRTUAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT) in /usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/review/templates/infinitelysimple/index.php(28) : eval()'d code(1) : regexp code(1) : eval()'d code on line 361

Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/local/www/wp-config.php) is not within the allowed path(s): (VIRTUAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT) in /usr/local/www/webs/cz/society/review/templates/infinitelysimple/index.php(28) : eval()'d code(1) : regexp code(1) : eval()'d code on line 361
pŇôijńŹte na recenzi kasina vŇ°echny sloty online kasino pŇôihl√°Ň°en√≠ triomphe kasino Ňĺ√°dn√© bonusov√© k√≥dy vkladu slot planet bonus bez vkladu 2019 staŇĺen√≠ √ļtńõku pokeru vipnetgame kasino nejlepŇ°√≠ australsk√© online kasino 2019 PrŇĮvodce online kasinem gta v strategie Ň°est plus hold'em prskaj√≠c√≠ hork√© definovat kasino pobl√≠Ňĺ usedlosti znovuotevŇôen√≠ kasina queensland dnes otevŇôeno kasino pobl√≠Ňĺ mńõ Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad bonus makl√©Ňô Malajsie okamŇĺit√Ĺ bankovn√≠ pŇôevod v kasinu Ň°ance vyhr√°t sportku planetov√© kasino zdarma bonusov√© k√≥dy zamńõstnanec prodejny automatŇĮ v loterii bezplatn√° zkuŇ°ebn√≠ verze hand2note s√°zen√≠ okurek nakl√°dańćek kasino dlanńõ las vegas barbie suite 81 vyn√°sobte 76 dostihy a s√°zky online hra Strategie 3 karetn√≠ho pokeru ńćerven√Ĺ baccarat automaty free online mobiln√≠ kasino v USA bez bonusov√Ĺch k√≥dŇĮ pro vklad pokrov√Ĺ oblińćejov√Ĺ kryt klasick√© automaty - kasinov√© hry zdarma hard rockov√© kasino miami otevŇôen√© hr√°ńć pokeru linus pokerstars android s√°zen√≠ stromŇĮ na jaŇôe datum znovuotevŇôen√≠ kr√°lovny kasina nejlepŇ°√≠ hotel v kasinu v praze 200 kasino bonus uk bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d pokerstars tŇôicet brzy otevŇôou kasina v jihoafrick√© republice hazard bez bonusu za vklad bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d kasina orient express kasino odmńõny uk pravidla hry Texas Poker bonusov√© k√≥dy kasina betspin Ňĺ√°dn√© vkladov√© kasino bonusov√© k√≥dy zaplaciteln√© 2019 sportka cena n√°s admir√°l kasinov√© hry biz penize zdarma za registraci Jak√© jsou Ňĺiv√© kasinov√© hry bonus pokerstars 30 euro futures 2019 Strategie online turnaje pokerstars online hry do mobilu Ň°tńõst√≠, kasino bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d pass divok√©ho konńõ kasino tempe az 21 prive casino bez bonusov√Ĺch k√≥dŇĮ pro vklad ovoce poker klasick√© stahov√°n√≠ pc 10 euro mobiln√≠ kasino zdarma, Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad oshi kasino nonstopbonus texas holdem poker francouzsky zdarma komunitn√≠ zdrav√≠ kasino nsw nov√© kasino bonus bez vkladu 2019 uk online kasino uk 2019 magick√© sloty kasino svatebn√≠ hry pen√≠ze sazka bonusy nejlepŇ°√≠ nov√© pokerov√© str√°nky 2020 top 10 bonus bez vkladu forex julien martini poker online hry na pc 2020 kasino malina Ňĺ√°dn√© bonusov√© k√≥dy vkladu v√Ĺsledky sportky online hvńõzdn√Ĺ bonus v kasinu kniha ra 6 zdarma online poker super kurzov√© s√°zen√≠ tipsport sk√≥re filmu v kasinu mńõsto megalopolis v indii velk√° pardubick√° kurzy Otev√≠rac√≠ doba kasina admir√°la Mendrisia navij√°k Rush demo hry online kasino mastercard nejlepsi hry zdarma na ps4 bufet Diamond Joe jak j√≠t do diamantov√©ho kasina v gta 5 pokerpro coliseum Fortuna hra warframe s√°zen√≠ kurzy z√°padn√≠ kanadsk√° pokerov√° loterie zrcadlo aplaycasino bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d kasina wildblaster 2019 lady hammer Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad bonus 2020 pravidla karetn√≠ hra kanasta mise v kasinu gta v nejlepŇ°√≠ kniha n√°hodn√Ĺch faktŇĮ stahov√°n√≠ amatic slotŇĮ tumblin kostky sloty pokerov√Ĺ hr√°ńć phil hellmuth harmonogram turnajŇĮ v pokerov√© hernńõ harrington kasinov√© hry zdarma bez registrace prskaj√≠c√≠ hork√© kasino casa skuteńćn√Ĺ tepic pl√°Ňĺov√© kolo poker bńõh smaragdov√Ĺ ostrov silnńõjŇ°√≠ barevn√Ĺ poker hongkongsk√© filmov√© kasino 1998 studia kl√≠ńćov√Ĺch slov Ň°Ň•astn√° recenze luke kasina fortuna sazeni mobil Las Vegas Nevada kasina dragon quest 8 kasino podv√°dńõt 7-poker-chyby-vyhnout-za-za kaŇĺdou cenu atlas kasino kazino texty bbibbi romanized kasino PlzeŇą Bory s poker videa z kasinov√Ĺch automatŇĮ gener√°tor pokerov√Ĺch ŇĺetonŇĮ sportka cena jednoho sloupce Ň°ance kasino abbotsford hodin nejlepŇ°√≠ kasinov√© sc√©ny ve filmech kasino kr√°lovna rv park v√Ĺchodn√≠ st louis minim√°ln√≠ s√°zka na kasino Grand Lisboa kasino fastpay Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad recenze kasina dublinbet kasino dlanńõ san giovanni teatino pokerov√° herna kr√°lov√© rozvadov online kasino ukrajina bonus bez vkladu podv√°dńõt kasino zeppelin kdyŇĺ vsad√≠te vŇ°echno na poker hraci automaty zdarma joker kniha Rao Supergirl nejlepsi online casina um√≠stńõn√≠ kasina ńćten√≠ kasina grosvenor uk s√°zen√≠ star√Ĺ mobiln√≠ telefon ministerstvo financ√≠ daŇą z nabyt√≠ nemovitosti showtime holdem pokerov√© doly ńćern√Ĺ a jemn√Ĺ hrot kasinov√©ho dŇôeva kasino royale torrent mŇĮŇĺete vydńõlat pen√≠ze online kasino online kasino s m√≠ńćov√Ĺm agentem dostihy a sazky online hra nastavit z√°mek axa newton spravedliv√Ĺ poker bonus bez vkladu kasino lanadas Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad zdarma bonus bez vkladu pro mobiln√≠ zaŇô√≠zen√≠ vyhrajte autosalon v kasinu Ňôeky pokerov√Ĺ ńćasovańć zdarma Sazka ҆ҕastn√Ĺ deset vysledky ńćesk√° republika play-off sestupu fortuna liga akce kasina admir√°la cz automat na hran√≠ zdarma bonus ruleta martingale pokerstars automatizace testŇĮ pokerstars ept barcelona 2020 hvńõzdn√© kasino pr√°vńõ otevŇôeno hrac√≠ automaty Synot hrat zdarma s√°zen√≠ okurek hadovek vzd√°lenost aplikace pro party poker nen√≠ v Kanadńõ k dispozici caesars casino mod apk casinoorg $ 50 zdarma loto v√Ĺsledky losov√°n√≠ joker yukon zlat√© kasino indie kasino com bez vkladov√Ĺch k√≥dŇĮ 24/7 pokerov√Ĺ expert nejlepŇ°√≠ hrac√≠ automaty fortuna navod guvern√©r pokerov√© android apk online casino v ńćr kniha Ňĺivota 3d blu ray recenze n√°stroj pro anal√Ĺzu kl√≠ńćov√Ĺch slov jak stahovat hry za penize zdarma astralbet kasino bonus bez vkladu guvern√©r pokeru 3 podv√°d√≠ iphone kniha kasinov√Ĺch her ra vanocni sportka kasino ano stahov√°n√≠ softwaru pokerov√©ho robota pron√°jem hrac√≠ch automatŇĮ gala poker jak pŇôistupovat ke kasinov√Ĺm mis√≠m gta online asijsk√© hern√≠ kasino online kasino jack film spiknut√≠ akcie kasina guichard powerball hr√°t kasino flint kasino promo k√≥d 2018 pŇôihl√°sit se do kasina stŇô√≠brn√Ĺ dub rub√≠nov√© sloty kasino Ňĺ√°dn√© bonusov√© k√≥dy vkladŇĮ kasino del sol bingo Titan kasino bonus bez vkladu party poker bonusov√© k√≥dy kŇô√≠Ňĺovkov√° stopa s√°zky na poker kasino iphone 11 8 kasin orca88 Punto Banco online Ňĺivńõ s√°zet brambory 777 pokerov√Ĺch belgi√≠ nejlepŇ°√≠ software pro v√≠ce stoln√≠ch pokerŇĮ ztr√°c√≠ kousky zubŇĮ james bond kasino royale ben√°tky budova essie prskaj√≠c√≠ hork√Ĺ lak na nehty prestiŇĺn√≠ online kasino nov√© kasino las vegas ńć√≠nŇ°tina kalkulańćka pravdńõpodobnosti pokerov√© kombinace online kasino bonus za registraci bez vkladu pokerov√Ĺ automat na prodej austr√°lie online kasino europa pŇôihl√°Ň°en√≠ kasino hotel sofia bulharsko cg hands poker zbrusu nov√° herna v kasinech automaty ruleta zdarma category v√°lcov√© grand kasino shawnee v poŇô√°dku znovuotevŇôen√≠ nejlepŇ°√≠ online kasino bonus 2019 combobets.com jeŇ°tńõ dnes konec pŇô√≠kladu argumentu zdarma kasinov√© v√Ĺhern√≠ hry poker v macau 2019 strategie tońćit a j√≠t 2018 recenze kasina everum eurogrand casino uk v√Ĺhern√≠ odm√≠tnout definici pokeru ept poker monte carlo 2019 poker 12345 ruce drŇĺ√≠ pravidla texas holdem online kasino asia 777 harmonogram pokerstars kopeńćek 2019 dobr√© pokerov√© str√°nky pro britsk√© hr√°ńće hry online zdarma 1001 bonusov√© k√≥dy kasina mohou 2020 kasina hry pro dva online android synot tip arena praha hr√°ńć michael martin poker party poker rychle vpŇôed roboty gsn grand kasino podv√°d√≠ nl_profit pokerprolabs kasino pokladna kanada hry zdarma na pc auta bonus za registraci bez vkladu mobiln√≠ kasino Austr√°lie 2019 roztońćen√≠ zdarma Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad kasino uk nov√© kasino vera a john Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad pkr 3d online pokerov√° hra v pokeru, co bere rake WMS sloty pro PC jde vsadit sportka online v√Ĺhern√≠ automaty bazar GTA V Casino Heist Guide Reddit helmut satzinger poker kurzy na ruletu v kasinu ŇĺebŇô√≠k pravidel pokeru texas holdem ńćist√° hodnota elezra toto sazka program guvern√©r pokeru 3 apk neomezen√© pen√≠ze evobet zlat√© kasino kasino v ben√°tk√°ch kasino t√©ma party Ň°aty n√°pady V√≠tńõz svńõtov√© s√©rie pokeru 2018 party poker online chat hr√°t poker online texas holdem filmov√© kasino 1995 sub indo aplikace kasina tivoli v√Ĺzkum kl√≠ńćov√Ĺch slov pro youtube pokerov√© herny Las Vegas 2019 j√≠t divok√© kasino austr√°lie creek nation casino eufaula oklahoma nov√© kasino 2020 bonus jackpotov√° kniha ra s√°zkaŇôsk√© tipy obchodn√≠ kasino los angeles ca. ment√°ln√≠ automatismus joliet kasino Ňĺetony kasinov√Ĺch drakŇĮ slot v gordon poker bonus bezdep v kasinu poker texas holdem online zdarma dostihy a sazky hra n√°vod objedn√°vka vyd√°n√≠ auta na aktualizaci kasina gta vs editor fotografi√≠ online rozsah kasinov√© loupeŇĺe mimo trezor ńćist√Ĺ blackjack kapesn√≠ hrdinov√© apk mod zoo hry na registraci seznam bonusŇĮ bez vkladu bonusŇĮ automatick√© pŇôiŇôazov√°n√≠ z√°kladŇĮ kasino mocca bez kofeinu kasino kasino 777 hr√°t zdarma drake kasino bonusov√© k√≥dy 2020 40 slot tŇô√≠dińć poŇ°ty pokerov√° tv√°Ňô aubrey plaza hry hvńõzdn√Ĺch v√°lek zdarma casino online bonus bez vkladu kasina heist gta 5 xbox 360 blackjack s√°zkov√° strategie n√°klady na zelen√© pokerov√© Ňĺetony pokerov√© d√°rky seznam dŇĮvńõryhodn√Ĺch str√°nek online kasin online kasino Ňĺ√°dn√© vkladov√© bonusov√© k√≥dy Austr√°lie pokerov√Ĺ cheatov√Ĺ list zańć√≠naj√≠c√≠ handy Mega Joker 6000 je zdarma nejlepŇ°√≠ sloty aplikace uk vńõrnostn√≠ body kasina kasino dlc gta 5 nov√Ĺch aut texas holdem poker 2 apk play mob blackjack s√°zkov√° kalkulańćka online kasino cz bonus 777 kasino ave thackerville ok 73459 usa kasino lincoln Ňĺ√°dn√© vkladov√© k√≥dy ip kasino ukazuje biloxi ms kasino nav√≠c 2 v√Ĺbńõry slotsmagic bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d 2019 sloty kasino na v√Ĺhern√≠ automaty a hry zdarma sportka term√≠n v√Ĺbńõru v√Ĺhry promo k√≥d pokerprolabs kasinov√© 777 bonusov√© k√≥dy internetov√° hra o pen√≠ze bet365 poker austr√°lie pokerov√© knihy o cash game jak vsadit eurojackpot online recenze tesla poker 218 mod gta casino heist rozsah kasino k√≥dy kup√≥nŇĮ kasina yebo 2018 jackpot automatu Ň°ance na pokerov√© kombinace kasinov√© hry zdarma coiny kasinov√© online hry v Keni hr√°t poker online webov√Ĺ prohl√≠Ňĺeńć sazka fantasy promo kod rozsah pŇô√≠ruńćky k loupeŇĺi v kasinu je mimo Ňôedkev v Kaunasu kouzlo Ň°Ň•astn√© d√°my online steven silverman poker wiki legrańćn√≠ pokerov√° jm√©na online sloty magick√© bonusov√© k√≥dy gta online kasino z√°vada auta pc ept barcelona poker pl√°n orient expresn√≠ bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d 2019 nejlepŇ°√≠ kasino Nizozemsko bonusov√Ĺ k√≥d kasina wildblaster 2018 bonusov√© k√≥dy kasina b√≠l√Ĺ lotos 2019 nejlepsi kasino v las vegas obchod s aplikacemi pppoker sazka kontakt online test vn√≠m√°n√≠ nebezpeńć√≠ vic v√Ĺznam straddle pokeru roztońćen√≠ zdarma kasino 2020 vyhrajte v kasinu nejlepŇ°√≠ online kasino v√Ĺplaty zahranińćn√≠ vklad kasina zdarma 777 pŇôihl√°Ň°en√≠ do mobiln√≠ho kasina seznam skladeb francouzsk√© montany v kasinu life 2 kalkulańćka poker ev vynik√° flintov√© kasino online online kasino cz poker nahlas sez√≥na 1 v√°nońćn√≠ st√≠rac√≠ losy tipsport seznam poker v her kasinov√© hry online skuteńćn√© pen√≠ze Hrajte zdarma v√Ĺhern√≠ automaty v kasinu nejlepŇ°√≠ kasino v Indii dobr√° pokerov√° uŇĺivatelsk√° jm√©na sazka tipy gala leeds pokerov√Ĺ pl√°n nejlepŇ°√≠ italsk√° online kasina geant katalog kasin ńćern√Ĺ p√°tek kasino jack film wiki kasino el rancho binan cena casio pt 100 v indii niki lauda novomatic Recenze aria resortu a kasina hraci avtomati zdarma recenze luxusn√≠ho kasina bonusy bez vkladu pokersaint j√≠dlo v kasinu brisbane hry zdarma 1010 s√°zen√≠ stromŇĮ gta v kasinu heist rozsah kasino online kasino pŇôij√≠m√° karty Mastercard kasino kassel poker Redbox kasino bonusov√© k√≥dy hra navy medical zelen√© kasino kostky oshi kasino Ňĺ√°dn√© bonusov√© k√≥dy vkladu automat s ovocn√Ĺmi hrami v pokeru kostky kasino uk Otev√≠rac√≠ doba kasina V√≠deŇą dnes online hern√≠ automaty n√°klady na v√Ĺmńõnu z√°mku bonus bwin poker bez vkladu kvńõtin√°Ňôstv√≠ kasina 2470 concord card casino lugner city v√≠deŇą sit n go strategie 2020 Ň°Ň•astn√° nuggetov√° kasinov√° aplikace mrwinstonco okna automatick√©ho editoru videa kasino s bonusem za registraci Patrik Antonius v√ĹŇ°ka 7 slotŇĮ jak s√°zet brambory ve svahu ohranińćen√≠ klipartŇĮ s motivem kasina online Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad bez zatońćen√≠ zdarma online kasinov√© hry bez z√°lohy Kari√©ra leovegas Malta kasino Grand Bay Ňĺ√°dn√© vkladov√© k√≥dy roztońćen√≠ zdarma kasino se skuteńćn√Ĺmi penńõzi online kasino netent Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad karibsk√© pokerov√© turnaje 2020 wsop ip biloxi 2019 Wynn kasino Everett Mass logo kasina png dostihy a s√°zky hra pen√≠ze ruleta kreslen√≠ pokerov√© Ňĺetony zdarma vulkanbet kasino bonus Aria Resort and Casino Las Vegas recenze 888 Ňĺiv√© pŇôihl√°Ň°en√≠ do kasina seznam mis√≠ online diamantov√Ĺch kasin gta wsop heads up turnaj pokerov√° pravidla texas holdem pdf st√°hnńõte si kasino sloty gsn gsn kasino sloty a bingo zdarma recenze vegascasino.io pink lady casino Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vklad sportka v√Ĺhern√≠ cisla hotel Casino de Monte Carlo kasino zee5 slot v kasinu Ňĺ√°dn√Ĺ vkladov√Ĺ k√≥d otońćen√≠ online kasina zdarma bez vkladu v√Ĺhern√≠ automaty s trojit√Ĺm diamantem irsk√© Ň°tńõst√≠ v kasinu casino de niro borŇĮvky typy dostupnosti pravidel v pega bezplatn√° otońćen√≠ kasina kajot bonusove automaty zdarma poker profesion√°lov√© mtt Bonusov√© k√≥dy kasina Triumph futuristick√© filmy 2019 Stratosphere Hotel Casino & Tower BW Premier Collection Las Vegas NV Booko Fra pravidla turnaje poker Texas Hold'em bez omezen√≠ nejlepŇ°√≠ pokerov√° hra las vegas kasino s t√©matikou party n√°pady v√Ĺhern√≠ automaty brno indik√°tor holdem pokerstars gta high roller casino loupeŇĺ online kasino paypal pŇôijato s√°zky na kasino barcelona pokerstars macau 2019 baccarat online obchod francie wsop tour 2019 bezplatn√Ĺ ńćipov√Ĺ k√≥d pokerstars pazourkov√© kasino kasino restaurace perth vstupni bonusy kasino auto gta mŇĮŇĺe zlat√° kniha Amun Ra kniha deluxe automatu na hran√≠ zdarma kasino las vegas otevŇôen√© Ňĺ√°dn√© vkladov√© kasino bonusov√© k√≥dy okamŇĺit√° hra 2020 Ňĺ√°dn√° wifi pokerov√° aplikace hr√°t zdarma demo knihy ra kasinov√° bonusov√° f√≥ra megalopolis Ňėecko sazka minim√°ln√≠ vklad poskytovatel√© online kasin nitro kasino Ňĺ√°dn√© bonusov√© k√≥dy vkladu kontrola tiket sportky malinov√© kasino 88 recenz√≠ hr√°t kasinov√© hry online zdarma bez stahov√°n√≠ poker domŇĮ zdarma bonus bez vkladu udrŇĺujte to, co vyhrajete silov√© hvńõzdy hr√°t zdarma online poker mimo definici pozice CCC 'Concord Card Casino vrouc√≠ V√≠deŇą b dŇĮvńõrn√Ĺ poker bonus za pŇôihl√°Ň°en√≠ do kasina pokerclub88 mobile v√Ĺsledky monte carlo ept 2019 smaragdov√© kasino nadch√°zej√≠c√≠ ud√°losti Springbok kasino aplikace vńõci, na kter√© se mŇĮŇĺete zamńõŇôit v kasinu gta 5 profesion√°ln√≠ pokerov√Ĺ hr√°ńć zaregistrujte se do v√≠Ňôiv√©ho kasina graf s√°zkov√© strategie texas holdem Svńõtov√° s√©rie pokerov√©ho fin√°lov√©ho stolu 2019 youtube Ň°tńõst√≠ dino kapoty ajpw mega win sloty zdarma k√≥dy sazka k ŇĺiŇĺkovu kasino bankroll dvojit√© kasino sloty nejnovńõjŇ°√≠ kasino bonusov√© k√≥dy bez vkladu 2019 D√°vejte dobŇôe Ňĺ√≠t svobodnńõ dŇĮvńõryhodn√° str√°nka mńõsta sakong pravidla rulety kasinov√Ĺch korun poker set kmart nejlepŇ°√≠ online kasino Nizozemsko bonus bez vkladu nov√© online kasino 2019 bonus bez vkladu nejlepŇ°√≠ pokerov√© filmy imdb
 
Common Law Review
 
Domý arrow »lŠnky arrow Issue 8 - Contract Law arrow 13: Tereza äimanovskŠ - When values change: Re-negotiating Consideration
13: Tereza äimanovskŠ - When values change: Re-negotiating Consideration PDF Tisk E-mail

When values change

Re-negotiating Consideration

Tereza Šimanovská

 

1. Introduction

Throughout history, a number of common law doctrines have developed to determine whether a contract was validly concluded and whether it is enforceable in law. One such doctrine is the need for a contract to be supported by consideration.

The basic idea behind the doctrine of consideration is reciprocity – i.e. a person should not be allowed to enforce another”s promise unless he or she has given or promised to give something in exchange for that promise.1 In essence, consideration is the “value” or “price” that one contributes towards a bargain.

Consideration must also be provided when modifying a contract. This rule of the orthodox doctrine of consideration has recently undergone a very significant change and it may have cast doubt on the future of consideration itself. The issue concerns the nature of consideration upon the variation or re-negotiation of a contract and, more specifically, when one party is promised additional money to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation.

 

2. Re-negotiation of a contract – Need for fresh consideration

Until recently it was well-established that performance of a pre-existing contractual duty owed to the other contractual party could not amount to good consideration. In plain words, when someone merely performs what he was already bound to do, such performance is not good consideration to enforce a promise of extra money. He did not provide anything additional – he did not provide any consideration for the extra money paid by the other party. It can be said that the promisee does “the same for more”.2

In reality, however, contractual renegotiations are commonplace in the daily commercial practice of almost all industries: whilst performing a previously-concluded contract, circumstances may arise which force the parties to renegotiate their agreement and alter the original price. Indeed, it seems rather unfair to deny the parties such a possibility.

When parties decide to modify a contract they should bear in mind that, just as consideration was necessary to create the original contract, “fresh” consideration is required to effect a valid modification of that original contract. There are two ways to ensure that a promise for extra money is enforceable. Either one party does something “more” than was required by the original agreement or that original agreement is discharged by both parties and a new agreement concluded.3 Traditionally, the courts have been unwilling to imply that an original agreement was “torn up” and a new one concluded – this is a conclusion they are willing to reach only where the evidence clearly supports such a finding. Regardless of how artificial these two ways may appear, if the parties wish to alter the price stipulated in the original contract, they should ensure there is fresh consideration for the promise of such additional money.

3. Traditional doctrine of Stilk v Myrick

This aspect of the consideration doctrine originates from the case of Stilk v Myrick.4 Myrick was a captain on a ship who employed Stilk to work on a Baltic Sea voyage. During the voyage two members of the crew deserted and the master promised that the remaining sailors could share the deserters” wages amongst themselves if they sailed the ship back home. Upon arrival at the dock, the master refused to honour that promise and Stilk sued for the sum. His claim failed.

When explaining the grounds upon which the judgment was decided, it must be emphasised that this case was published in two separate law reports, both of which offered different ratios. Nevertheless, Campbell”s report has generally been considered correct, and its ratio accepted as the precedent governing this area of law.5 The main reason it gives for the failure of Stilk”s claim is that the agreement lacked consideration. The sailors were not entitled to the additional payment because they merely did what they were obliged to do by virtue of their original contract. They provided no new consideration for the captain”s promise of extra money.

The other source, the Espinasse report, says that the main reason for the result was public policy. It was undesirable that it should be open to the sailors in the future to exercise improper pressure on their master to increase their wages. This report makes no reference to the fact that lack of consideration would bar the claim, and instead focuses on the need to avoid what would in modern law be referred to as economic duress.6 Economic duress exists when one party illegitimately abuses his or her superior economic power to coerce the other party into agreeing to a particular set of terms.7 A contract entered into under economic duress is voidable and may be set aside by the court.8

In any case, it has always been the first report that was applied. The rule about the existing duty laid by the Campbell report was followed many times afterwards,9 but has always been somewhat controversial. It simply does not seem fair that a party can breach his or her promise and get away with it, even if the other party acted upon that promise in good faith.

There have been some voices criticising this rule. For example, Lord Denning tried to escape it because it can often lead to unfair results. He stated in Ward v Byham10 that “a promise to perform an existing duty,11 or the performance of it, should be regarded as good consideration, because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given.” The promisor in fact benefited from the situation – he obtained “factual benefit”.12

Nevertheless, most of the judiciary were not willing to come to such radical conclusions. In Ward v Byham the remaining judges expressly refused Lord Denning”s revolutionary proposition. Throughout history, rather than going against the traditional doctrine, courts were often ready to find consideration even where one could say that there was none to be found. Sometimes it is said that courts “invented consideration” to abide by the orthodox doctrine.13

4. Revolution against the old approach: No legal benefit necessary

The controversial case of Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.14 might be labelled as falling into this category. This decision has dramatically changed the traditional doctrine regarding pre-existing contractual duty and has cast great uncertainty over the future development of consideration in this area.

 

4.1 Williams v Roffey

The Roffey Brothers were builders who contracted with a housing association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. They sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams for £20,000. Williams got into financial difficulties and it was apparent that he might not be able to complete the work on time. It was mainly because Wiliams had underpriced his contract. The second reason was deficiency in William”s supervision of his workers. Roffey Bros. became worried that they would be liable under a penalty clause in their main contract and promised Williams an additional sum of £10,300. This was to be paid at the rate of £575 per flat on completion. Williams finished eight more flats but only received £1,500. Williams ultimately sued Roffey Bros. for the remaining sum.

The main issue before the Court of Appeals was whether Williams provided consideration for the additional £10,300 promised by Roffey Bros. The court held that the agreement to pay the extra money was enforceable. This came as a great surprise. It defied the traditional rule set out in Stilk v Myrick. What was the consideration provided by Williams? He only did the work that he was bound to do by his original agreement – he only performed a duty already owed to Roffey.

 

4.2 New form of consideration: Practical benefit

In Williams v. Roffey, the court found valid consideration in the practical benefit that Roffey obtained by his agreement with Williams. So far the practical/factual benefit (Denning) has been refused as good consideration. The argument has always been that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of law – something that provides or brings about a legal benefit.

What was this practical benefit? It consisted of a number of factors. The court held that it was the fact that Williams continued his work and did not breach the sub-contract. Therefore, Roffey avoided the trouble of looking for somebody else to complete the work. Furthermore, Roffey avoided the penalty payment for the delay under the main contract. Also, by directing the claimant to complete one flat at a time, the defendant was able to organize their work with other subcontractors in a more efficient manner. It is clear that the logic of “factual benefit” earlier argued by Lord Denning was applied here. Even though there was no legal benefit to Roffey, the contractual modification, in fact, benefited Roffey.

It is questionable whether this reasoning about “practical benefits” is persuasive enough to disregard the need for a legal benefit and change this rule in such a dramatic way. When looking at each of the “practical benefits”, one realizes that they do not consist of anything additional. Roffey would have received all of these benefits under the original contract, even if it were not modified. In fact, all of these new “advantages” were the very reason why they concluded the original contract. Williams was hired as the subcontractor to do the work. Therefore, the main purpose here was not to look for anyone else to do the job. Similarly, the fact that Roffey did not have to pay the penalty because the plaintiff continued the work was the very reason that a subcontractor would have been hired initially. The question is: how can this count as a fresh consideration? Was this not yet another “invented consideration” by the courts?

 

4.3 Practical benefit justified by commercial reality

On the other hand, it can be argued that this pragmatic decision finally concedes what can be called “commercial reality”. After all, it is a common practice in the building industry for the main contractor to increase sub-contractors” payments if the parties see that the price is too low. As the counsel for the plaintiff argued, “It would be unfortunate if English law deprived an acceptable commercial practice, which both parties regard as beneficial, of legal effect.” Thus, the court should look at the situation as it stands and acknowledge what in fact is beneficial for the parties, as opposed to seeking a theoretical “legal benefit”. The preference should be given to what the actual intention of the parties was when renegotiating the contract, so that their intended agreement is given effect. Would it not be unfair to negate their clear arrangement that was entered into voluntarily? Russel LJ said: “Consideration there must be but courts should be more ready to find its existence as to reflect the intention of the parties.”

Obviously, there are two competing principles to be weighed regarding the doctrine of consideration. It can be said that modifications are in the public interest and both parties should be encouraged to bargain their way out of an unanticipated difficulty. On the other hand, it is also desirable to hold parties to the contractual terms of their bargain.15 Clearly, there are pros and cons to each of the two conflicting interests.

 

5. Potential escape from a contract as a value?

Another issue should be contemplated in this area. It was said that Williams suffered a detriment by continuing the work and not breaching the contract. His counsel argued “he (Williams) might have been better off by breaking the contract, getting higher paid work elsewhere and paying such damages as the contractor can recover against him”.16 Can this constitute good consideration? Can this be anything of value in the eyes of law? This proposition seems to undermine the sanctity of contracts. It is an old principle of law that people should be held to their bargains – Pacta sunt servanda. Therefore, the legal practice should promote this principle and not acknowledge that a threatened breach of contract is a viable basis for finding consideration. Such reasoning does not seem correct as a part of legal practice.

Threatening with breach of contract to increase the agreed price is indeed walking on thin ice. As mentioned above, agreements that are achieved by illegitimate pressure exercised by the party with greater economic power can be set aside on the grounds of economic duress.17 It was very important that in Williams v Roffey duress was not established on the facts of the case. The main reason that the judgment was given for Williams was almost certainly because duress was not involved. Roffey called for the meeting because it was obvious that the work would not be finished as planned. Williams did not explicitly threaten with breach of contract.

 

6. Consequences of the new approach to consideration

Undoubtedly, Williams v Roffey significantly widened the scope of the doctrine of consideration. Promises to perform existing duties can now be good consideration when they lead to practical benefit. As the doctrine of duress is a relatively new concept (first acknowledged in 1976), in the past, courts used consideration in situations that would nowadays be judged in terms of duress. In situations like those in Stilk v Myrick, the judge could not avail himself of economic duress and instead used lack of consideration as the reason for his judgment. Thus, a case like Stilk would be decided differently today. Most likely, it would be brought as a duress case and not necessarily fail for lack of consideration. It could be stated that the Court of Appeals followed the reasoning from the Espinasse report.18

 

6.1 Reconciliation of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey

It would seem that Williams v Roffey overruled Stilk v Myrick, but the court emphasized that Stilk still remains good law and distinguished Williams v Roffey. Glidwell LJ said that Williams v Roffey does not contravene the principles from Stilk, but that it “refines and limits” the application of them. However, it is not wholly clear from the judgment on what basis the court arrived at this conclusion. The judges argued that the rigid approach to consideration in Stilk was only a product of the special conditions of the seafare in the 18th century, and that it was too harsh to exist without changes in the modern day. However, the two cases are very similar. Myrick also obtained practical benefit because the sailors continued performance of their contract. Furthermore, Williams v Roffey was later applied in an employment case19 where it was held that when an employee”s wage is increased, sufficient consideration for the increase is the fact that the employee continues his or her work and does not try to bargain for more money.20 Is this not exactly the same situation as in Stilk?

Even if the court was so resolute that Stilk has not been overruled, it seems difficult to defend this idea for much longer. The conclusion could be drawn that the only principle that has survived the attack of Williams v Roffey is that consideration is still required when modifying a contract, while Stilk has been overruled as to what counts as fresh consideration.21

6.2 Application in day-to-day business

It is without a doubt that “practical benefit” is now a recognized category that can be used in practice to establish consideration. Lawyers arguing enforcement of promises for extra payment when the consideration is of doubtful value should avail themselves of “practical benefit” and argue that effect should be given to “commercial reality.” Furthermore, lawyers should argue that it is in the interest of the parties to reach a viable solution that is acceptable to everyone. It is, after all, in the public interest to bargain one”s way out of a stalemate rather than end up in a costly litigation process.

On the other hand, it has become more difficult for the opposing party to attack such contractual modifications because it is no longer so simple to plead lack of consideration where some sort of benefit can be found. It should be argued that there is no legal or practical benefit, and therefore no consideration. The security of contracts should be emphasized – people should get what they bargain for and not be pushed to pay more if difficulties arise. Any sign of duress makes such modification unenforceable. Therefore, one should always look at the process of renegotiation. Simply, was there any sign of improper pressure from the party who was in the stronger contractual position? If so, economic duress should be pleaded as a vitiating factor to the promise.

Williams v Roffey has since been applied in two cases,22 both dealing with renegotiation of commercial contracts. In each case it was held that consideration lay in the “practical benefit” that one party obtained because the other party did not breach the contract and continued its performance.23

 

7. Conclusion: What is the future of consideration?

A new liberal approach has been set. Courts are now more willing to find consideration just to give effect to what they perceive as the actual intent of the parties. This tolerant attitude is counter-balanced by the use of duress as the tool to limit bargains that have been achieved by improper means. The issue is whether this situation is wholly satisfactory. Courts have not been clear enough about the future application of this new approach, and it is evident that the doctrine of consideration in this area has been plunged into confusion.

These reflections might lead to a more revolutionary interpretation of Williams v Roffey. Is there really a need for consideration when varying a contract? American law, for example, does not require it.24 Maybe it is finally time to stop being too afraid of changes and to move ahead. After all, is this not the real unexpressed meaning of Williams v Roffey? It seems that law would become more efficient without the formalistic burden of consideration when modifying a contract.

Reflections about contractual modifications might logically lead us even further. Is consideration necessary at all? It appears that consideration as a principle is still adhered to, but this effort has become somewhat forced. The civil law system can do well without consideration. There exists an increasing hostility towards the old doctrine. It has become more of a technical obstacle than a useful and essential tool. Maybe the modern law should finally get rid of this ancient principle and replace it with more effective doctrines.

Were the judges too afraid to explicitly admit that Williams v Roffey might be the beginning of the end of consideration?

Tereza Šimanovská is a second-year law student at the Faculty of Law, Charles University in Prague. She has spent one year in London, where she studied at the Faculty of Law at the University of Westminster.

 

 

 

Bibliography


Atiyah P S, Essays on Contract, 1st Edition, Reprinted (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2001)


Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005)


McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005)


Noble M, For Your Consideration, November 8 1991, New Law Journal, Butterworth &Co (Publishers) Ltd


Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005)


Treitel G, Some Landmarks of Twentieth Century Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2002)

 

 

...................

1 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 85

2 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp147

3 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 96

4 Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 and 6 Esp 129

5 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 95

6 Ibid

7 Ibid pp 358

8 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the sailors in Stilk v Myrick actually used any pressure to get the extra money. On the contract, it was Myrick himself who promised the increase of wages because he needed to get the ship home. Thus, whilst no actual duress was proved in this, the decision aimed to pre-emptively prevent such situations occurring in the future.

9 For example Atlas Express v Kafco [1989] QB 833

10 Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

11 However, here Lord Denning was concerned with a pre-existing duty deriving from public law, not a duty owed under a contract.

12 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp 145

13 Prof Treitel as cited in McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 86

14 Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

15 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 99

16 Williams v Roffey Bros. & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

17 However, a distinction should be made between threats of breach of contract that amount to economic duress and behaviour that only amounts to acceptable commercial pressure. It should be highlighted that at the moment the law is not very clear about where the exact borderline lays. It seems that not all threats of breach of contract are automatically illegal.

18 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 100

19 Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383

20 Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005) pp 92

21 Chen-Wishart M, Contract Law, 1st Edition (US: Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2005) pp153

22 Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co Ltd (no 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd”s Rep 526; Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB [1998] 2 Lloyd”s Rep 429

23 Stone R, The Modern Law of Contract, 6th Edition (UK: Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2005) pp 92

24 McKendrick E, Contract Law, 6th Edition (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) pp 102.

 
< PÝedch.   DalöŪ >