Contract Law

Foakes v. Beer (missed last class – interviews)
•    Why doesn’t the ruling in this case come under pre-existing duty?
•    Why do we need a separate rationale?
o    We do not need the rule from Foakes v. Beer – equally analysable under pre-existing duty
o    Separate island of jurisprudence all to itself, very similar to pre-existing duty rule
o    Could be under Stilk v. Meryk
•    Is is a subset of a preexisting duty, but we treat it separately for historical reasons.

•    Why doesn’t the hypothetical situation whereby one promises to write off a $100 debt in exhange for $50 fall under the rule that we saw earlier (stilk v. merit)
o    S & M was a legal dispute
o    The answer is that the s & m type scenario was about a compromising legal dispute
o    Whereas, in our hypothetical situation, there is no legal dispute.  One is not claiming that one does not owe the money.  One is simply admitting that one cannot pay it.

Given the similarity between the Foakes v. Beer and Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation, would the way around exhibited in williams v. roffey brothers be gotten around the same was as in Stott v. Merit?
o    Williams v. Roffy brother scenario takes some of the sting out
o    Why is it not equally applicable to the Foakes v. beer scenario?
•    It would be.
•    The English courts have addressed this.  They have said that one cannot use a Williams approach to defang the approach of Foakes.
•    This is because Foakes is a decision of the house of lords, and it would take a decision of that same house to overturn it.
•    Further, the argument goes that if Williams got one out from under Foakes, there would be nothing left to Foakes.
•    Whereas, in Williams, all three judges said they were not overturning Stilk v. Merit.
•    Why won’t a Williams argument apply?  (Consideration can be found in practical benefit…)
o    The answer is because the courts have said that it won’t.
•    Williams v. Roffy Brothers says that a prac. benefit can be consideration
o    applies only if the parties already have a contract
o    though limited in this way, nevertheless, is a precedent of great interest.
o    The natural question is, “what can Canada do?  Will they follow?”
•    If Gilbert Steel were decided today, would it go another way?
•    Under Quicklaw, search “Roffey” and see what the cndn courts do when they cite Williams v. Roffey Brothers.
•    ***Look and see whether it is being followed in Canada.  This may be important for midterm.
•    Will it stand as a great precedent of our time, or will it be forgotten?
•    P. 309, para 1. – “The case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. “
o    If the first creditor who gets judgment against a credit gets 100%, then the fifth creditor (for instance) may get nothing as there is nothing left.
o    Sometimes, creditors will agree amongst themselves that none of them will actually execute a judgment against the debtor.  They will take the entire assets of the debtor and divide them up.
o    Earl of Selborne says that this arrangment is binding, but cites it in a way that it would seem to be an exception to the Foakes v. Beer way, but does not mean it in this way.  In fact means that there is consideration in this arrangment.
•    This agreement between creditors is called a composition.
o    Note on page 310 para 3 – there is a point that the “chequeness” is not consideration unless it is a bargained-for chequeness.
•    Nothing is consideration unless it is treated as consideration – unless it is bargained for.  Read this over to clarify.
o    P 312 – contracts with a 3rd party.

Criteria to select promises worthy of legal enforcement
•    Promises given in return for something which the law is prepared to regard as consideration.
o    This is narrower than what ordinary people might view as consideration.
•    Promises under seal (will look at later).

•    Does our legal tradition enforce promises merely because the promisee has relied on them?
o    This is against theory, but may exist practically.
•    We now come to a series of cases where this appears to be the scenario.
o    What is going on will look like promise enforcement, but the question is whether it is really promise enforcement, or protecting resonable reliance.
•    Is it harm prevention as opposed to promise enforcement?
•    With promise enforcement, all the attention is on the promisor.
•    With harm prevention, all the attention is on the promisee.
o    The case that discovered the possibility that there might be something that strongly resembled considerationless promise enforcement was Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ltd.
•    Lord Denning, prior to becoming a Lord.  He is a Justice here – trial judge.
•    One of the few trial cases in our text.
•    Friendly parties – just want an answer, which they will be willing to accept.
•    In this case, one of the two parties (plaintiff) have become insolvent, and is in the hands of a receiver.  The receiver has a fiduciary duty to try to take in as much money as legally possible.
•    99-year leases are quite common in England.
•    The landlord sues for 2 things (which may be the same thing, 2 ways)
o    Full rent prospectively
o    Full rent retrospectively.
•    First thing we look for is consideration (to enforce the landlord’s promise to let them pay ½ rent).
o    The promissee did rely on this promise
o    Consideration:  The tenant did pay the ½ rent, but that is not consideration – that falls under pre-existing duty.
o    There is no seal on the changed contract.  No change vis-à-vis the change.  No consideration vis-à-vis the change.
o    Denning J. does something revolutionary while saying that he is not doing anything revolutionary.
•    Claims to be following jurisprudence.
•    He makes up something and attributes it to the widom of the past.
•    Estoppel – this is the leading case of estoppel.
•    What Denning J. is faced with is a situation where the promisor made a promise to the promisee, the promisee relied reasonably on the promise, and now the promisor wants to break the promise.
•    The landlord gave the tenant a representation of the future – we call this a promise
•    This case is about whether to enforce a promise.
•    Because it is a promise.  Does not fall under trad. Jurisprudence of estoppel.
•    Allows us to make some enforcement.
•    (para 1 on page 316) – “With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent was not a representation of an existing fact.  It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rest would not be enforced at a full rate but only at a reduced rate.  Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said… a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.”
•    (Para 2) “There have been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel, are not really such.  They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on.  In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured…  As I have said they are not cases of estoppel in the strict sense.  They are really promises – promises inteded to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    Continues – is this promise enforcement, or is it something that looks like promise enforcement, but is not?
•    Is there a meaningful difference between ordering a defendant to keep their promise, and ordering a defendant to act consistently with their promise.
•    Para 3 & 5 address the question (which we would never have to address with consideration)
•    How Binding?
•    The tenant had the audacity to argue that the promise was for the entire 99-year lease.
o    Lord Denning says no.  Will enforce the promise to some extent, but not that extent.
o    Says that the promisor can take back their promise to this promise

Reset.
•    It may be that the promisor can take back their promise
•    Estoppel-based promise-enforcement differs.
•    Promisory-estopple, or equitable-estoppel.
o    A different category of estoppel.

Next class:  Down to D & C Builders v. Rees

On TWEN is last year’s midterm.  Address questions 2 & 3 by way of sample.

5 Slogans:  (find ‘em)

*The pl always sues in his/her capacity of promisee
*The consideration is that which the promisee must demonstrate to the court that he/she exchanged to the promisor for their promise
Must take this decision path initially to get one’s bearings in the actual case.
Identifying the promise and dispute will tell you who the parties are – will coincide.

Too often students do not know where to begin with a problem.  Must orient oneself as per above.

*A promise of consideration is as good as consideration for this purpose.

In the eyes of the law, for this purpose, the law is prepared to treat the promise of something as equivalent to consideration – which is why it can be that my promise to convey my car to you for $1000, and your mutual promise to pay me $1000 for title to my car, gives rise to a binding agreement.

*Consideration is always a bargained-for detriment to the plaintiff-promissee
•    Always; bargained-for; detriment
•    Bargained-for is not just any detriment that counts as consideration.
o    It must be a detriment that was part of the bargain.
o    Ex:  In Dalhousie, the buildings (though a detriment) were not bargained for.
•    Something for something – an arrangement.
•    Consideration is always a bargained-for detriment.
•    **”Always”:  will come back to this word in this statement.

*Past Consideration is no consideration.

P 264
*Consideration need not be adequate;
or, the law does not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.
•    But, law does look at the sufficiency of consideration.
•    By adequacy – we mean the equivalence of the exchange; the quantum; quantity
•    Ex:  Arguing that selling one’s $10,000 car to another person for $1000 – the court does not allow us to go back and examine the adequacy of the arrangement.
o    If one is prepared to part from one’s property for a given price, then the value is simply seen as subjective; as in the appetite of the contractor.
•    By sufficiency (quick and dirty distinction between the two), we mean the ‘substance’ as opposed to the quantity.
o    Comes up in a surprising number of cases.
o    Means the consideration must partake of the substance of things that the law is prepared to accept as consideration.
•    Obvious example is moral consideration.
•    Cannot enforce moral considerations.
•    Past consideration does not count as sufficient consideration either.
•    Means that for something to be considered consideration, it needs to be of the substance of things that the law is willing to look at as consideration.
•    Mere detriment is not sufficient consideration – only bargained-for detriment.
•    Non-bargained-for reliance on a promise does not count as sufficient reliance.
•    SO, the law does not look at the adequacy of the consideration, but does require that it be sufficient
o    Means that the law doesn’t care how much consideration is involved, as long as it is consideration.

Past Consideration is no consideration
o    Implies a reference to something that is present.
o    The ‘something’ that is present is the promise.

Eastwood v. Kenyon
o    The husband undoubtedly made the promise, but this is not enough.
o    What did Eastwood exchange to Kenyon?
o    The consideration was rendered to Sarah a long time before her husband made the promise (or likely even knew her).
o    Could simply say that consideration is always a bargained-for detriment, and there was none of that here.
o    Can also say here, more particularly, that past consideration is not consideration.

o    Eastwood v. Kenyon is the case where consideration ceases to be simply ‘a word’.  It is a watershed in giving ‘consideration’ its modern meaning.
o    Goes to having a technical meaning in the law.
o    Para 9, page 267 – Lampleigh v. Brathwait (1615) – “the leading case on the subject…”
o    Distinguishable from Eastwood and Kenya
o    In E. v. K., have 1) Eastwood’s spending, then 2) Kenya’s promise
•    (1) had already been done before (2) came along.
o    In L. v. B., there are 3 acts:
•    Facts:  braithwaite killed someone, and was sentenced to hang.  At the time, those who were sentenced to hang were in fact not hanged.  They were usually pardoned (either conditionally or unconditionally).  Braithwaite told Lampleigh to go to the King and lobby for a pardon.  This is Act (1).
•    Next sig thing that happens (2), is that Lampleigh does attempt to find the court, to lobby it.  It takes him awhile, but he does it – successfully.
•    (3) – Braithwaite promised Lampleigh compensation
•    In this case, the court said that braithwaite’s promise was enforceable.
•    Said that Lampleigh’s actions were consideration.
o    In Eastwood, the judge says that Lampleigh v. Brathwait was distinguishable from a past-consideration scenario.
o    Says that in L. v. B., the consideration was implicit in the original request.
o    (3) is implicit in (1).
o    P 267 – Hobart C.J. says that a mere voluntary courtesy will not have a consideration to uphold a promise.
o    If someone offers someone something as a courtesy for something already done, then the consideration is already in the past, and not-binding.
•    Ex: ‘b’ mows ‘a’s’ lawn.  ‘A’ offers ‘b’ $20 as compensation.
o    If the courtesy were moved at the request of the party who made the promise, then it is binding.  Then, it is not naked (nudem pactum) – but couples itself with the suit before…
o    This means that if, for example, ‘a’ asks ‘b’ to mow their lawn, ‘b’ mows the lawn, and then ‘a’ promises to pay $20 – the promise for $20 can be interpreted as implicit in the original request.
•    The coupling is through an implication.
•    It is implicit that one is not asking for a gratuitity.  This is, of course, much clearer in the realm of business as opposed to friends or neighbours.
o    [Aside:  Remember that juries determine questions of fact, judges determine questions of law.]

p 282.  Guiding Transaction Adjustments
o    a pre-existing legal relationship, that the parties wish to adjust.
o    How is this accomplished in a way that ‘sticks’?
o    Ex: ‘a’ promises ‘b’ to sell his car for $1000.  ‘B’ says yes.
o    ‘A’ regrets selling for too little, so ‘B’ agrees to up the price to $1200.
o    Often times, this would result in an amendment  – cross out $1000, write in $1200, and both parties initial.
o    Had a living contract, and decided to adjust it.
o    The question is whether this perfectly intuitive action is actually legal…
•    Does this actually result in a legal obligation to pay the $1200.
•    No.
•    This is very likely not legal.

Stilk v. Myrick [1809]
•    Napoleonic wars
•    Embargoes on Britain forced them to go far-afield for materials such as timbre.
o    In this case, there is a contract of hire for a vessell.
o    £5/month for the sailors.
o    2 sailors desert at Cronstadt (now Finland, then Russia).
o    The captain promised the other men that, were the places not filled, they would have the deserters’ wages split amongst them.
o    The places proved impossible to fill, and the remaining 9 crew worked the ship back to London from what is now Finland.
o    The captain, upon their return to London, would only pay the £5.
•    Garrow, for the masters of the ship, was one of the first famous lawyers – known for his appeals to juries
o    Garrow argues that if this sort of action were permitted, crews could extort captains to pay them more, or they would allow ships to sink during emergencies, etc.
o    Judges say that the deal is in fact unenforceable because the sailors gave the captain no consideration.
•    At this time, the answer to the question “Why can’t one sell oneself into slavery?” changed.
•    The trad answer was that it was against public policy.
•    Around this time, the answer changed to ‘beause there was no consideration’ – the property of the slave becomes the property of the master.
•    The law was becoming more theoretical.
o    The sailors who remained with the ship were already legally bound to do so.
o    Those who remained were bound by the terms of their original contract to do their utmost to bring the ship safely to its destination.
o    Therefore, the sailors were only promising to do their pre-existent legal duty – this does not make up new consideration for a new bargain.
o    A promise to do that which is already one’s legal duty is not sufficient to form consideration.

Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd.
o    The promise being sued on is the promise to pay an increased rate for the steel beams.
o    What consideration did Gilbert Steel give to University Construction Ltd. in exchange for this promise?
o    G.S. alleged that they agreed to give a good price on the second building in exchange for this agreement to pay an increased rate now.
•    2 problems:  i) too vague;  ii) doubt that it was agreed up (even if it was mentioned)
•    Does not work as consideration
o    The delivery of the steel is the obvious consideration.
•    Why is it not?
•    They were already obliged to provide this steel, as part of the original agreement.
•    There is not detriment here.
•    This is why they switched to the “good price” arguument.
o    Pl.’s lawyer argued that the consideration of the oral contract was the mutual abandonment of the prior agreement.
•    Variation scenario – does not work unless one has a mini-contract to change an already existing contract, which in itself requires consideration.
•    If they had decided to call the whole thing off, leaving them (at least for a millisecond) contractless, and entered into a new contract, then that would be binding.
•    Why is it binding to agree to call a contract off?
•    Each side is sustaining the bargained-for detriment of releasing the other side from their obligation.
•    Releasing another from an obligation is a detriment.  Here it is also a bargained-for detriment.
•    It is binding.
•    “Recision + new contract” analysis – this would work.
•    “variation” will never work, unless it is that mini-contract to vary.
o    Recision + new contract is the argument that Mr. Morphy makes here.
•    Wilson J.A. says that this is perfectly legitimate, but that there is no evidence to support the idea that this is what the parties believed they were doing.
•    How does one know whether a particular action is variation or recision?
•    very difficult.
o    This is why the correcting-and-initialing is likely not legal.
o    The editors of our text portray this case as one of the worst decisions ever made.
o    The article on page 297 is by one of the editors – Barry J. Reiter.

Williams v. Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.
o    Very similar case
o    Another contract case.
o    Another case where the project was half-finished.  Promised more to finish the project – how could this be binding?
o    Very rare in English C.A. for all three judges to write (as in Canada).
o    In this case, all three write.
o    Ever rarer for all three to write when they agree – they do in this case.
o    This is something different about this case…
o    Agree that this is enforceable, but are obviously so uncomfortable with enforcing it that they take a stab at explaining it.
o    Each of the three say that they are not overturning Stilk v. Myrick.
o    Say that it still stands for something.
o    Facts:  Roffey Bros have a contract with the municipality whereby they need to have the repairs completed by a certain date.
o    The pl. was a carpenter.  Def. was supposed to make progress payments to the plaintiff.
o    By april 9 1986, Pl. had completed the work on the roof, and first repairs to all 17 flats, and the second repairs on 9 flats.
•    Defendants had made interim payments of £16,200
o    By end of March, pl had run out of money
•    Roffey Bros. approach them and offer more money
•    Williams still went insolvent – had the audacity to sue Roffey Bros.
•    The fault was of Williams for putting in an unrealistic bid.
•    Had Roffey bros. over a barrel, due to the time restrictions on the other contract.
•    Under orthodox analysis, the plaintiffs already had a duty to finish the flats.
•    By promising again to do so for more money, they have insufficient consideration.
o    Where is the consideration that the judges find?
o    What the court has always required is that the pl. promisee exhange a legal detriment to the promiser.
o    In Hamer v. Sidway, in the real world, the kid was benefitting from not smoking, drinking, gambling but in the eyes of the law, giving up ones rights to do something is a detriment.
o    This case acknowledges the diff between a practical benefit and a legal benefit.
o     A practical benefit is not one that the law would normally recognize
o    at the end of this case, the practical benefit turns out to be the legal benefit.

Para 15 – page 303
o    Judge says that Roffy Bros was in fact deriving practical benefits from Williams completing the project at the new price.
o    Keeping Williams on the job should have been to the Roffy Bros benefit, as they did not have to try to find new contractors if that were even possible.
o    Says that the underpining of the rule in Stilk v. Myrick was to save masters from economic duress.
o    P 305 – para 22
o    Propositions
o    The obvious objection to these propositions is that consideration is a bargained-for  detriment
•    What new detriment did Williams sustain?  None.  They are already bound.
•    This judge ignores this.  Says that it is enough that it is a practical benefit to the promisor.
•    Bell thinks the judge is responsible for an enormously significant improvement in the law that is not based on sound theory.
o    Judge #2 – Russell L.J.
o    Says that it does not overturn stilk and myrick.
•    Sure…
o    S v M is not about a promised gift, despite what he says.
o    What he says it stands for bears no relation to what was in the case.  This is a trick.  It is a manipulation of the common law.
o    Judge #3 – Purchas L.J.”
o    Also says not overturning Stilk v. Myrick
•    Takes a different approach – changes the def’n of consideration away from detriment
•    Calls this the modern approach (para 33)
•    Note “Economic Duress”

While this case may be a good decision, it cannot possible be commensurate with contract theory.

For Friday:  finish cases on this page of syllabus

Consideration:
•    Number of plausible ways to look at the different types of agreements that the law will enforce
o    In common law, we enforce almost none of these
o    Consideration:  The type of promises that we enforce end up coinciding with what would be looked at if we said we would enforce “serious promises”, etc.
•    Requires evidence of an exchange.  If an exchange occurs, it ought to be fairly conspicuous.
•    Has an elemet of formality.
•    Although it is at first glance eccentric and non-intuitive, it does largely yield the same approach as if we had taken a more intuitive approach.
•    Analytical vocabulary for consideration as a problem:
o    Must approach the problem in a certain way.
•    Who is the offerer, who is the offeree?
•    Analytical tools involved the vocab of promiser and promisee – not the equivalent of offerer and offeree, in any way shape or form.
•    They are incommensurate ideas.
•    At the formation of a contract, we can conceptualize the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    If each party is receipt of a promise from the other, then we have two promisers and two promisees
•    This is the formation perspective.
•    But by the time time has passed and we have entered litigation, only one of the orginally dual promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
•    One promisee sues one promiser.  This is the promise that the promisee must show that they gave consideration in exchange for.
•    This is the promise that has allegdedly been broken.
•    This tells us what the relevant consideration was.
•    Must show the court that the relevant consideration was giving.
•    In a contracts case, the plaintiff is always the promisee; the defendant is always the promisor.
•    The relevant consideration is the one that the promisee must show that he provided to the promisor in exchange for his promise.
o    Our legal system only enforces bargains.
o    In our legal system, a promise of consideration is as good as consideration – this explains how offer/aceptance can result in a binding contract.  The law says that a promise of title (for example), in exchange for money (for example), is equivalent to having made the exchange.
o    There is virtually no reason, but the alleged reason is that the promise is as good as consideration, because the alternative fulfilling the promise is to be sued (and have the court impose payment).
•    Great conclusion:  The relevant consideration is the one that the pl. promisee must show that he/she promised to exchange with the def. promisor in exhange for the defendant’s promise.
•    Dalhousie – one cannot look at just anything and decide that it’s consideration.  Dal built buildings and hired teachers (in theory) on the basis of this pledge, and yet it was not consideration.
•    The point made by the scc is that Dal did not bargain the building of buildings.  It received Arthur’s promise, and then built buildings in response.  It did not exchange the building of buildings for the promise.
•    Cannot be made in reaction to a promise – that is not consideration.  “Here’s a plane ticket.”  “Wow.  Thanks.  I’ll give you some money.”  This is not consideration.  It is a reaction.
o    The essence of consideration is that it won’t be such unless it was exhanged in return for the promise.
•    P 357:  “To hold otherwise would be to hold that a naked, voluntary promise may be converted into a binding legal contract by the subsequent action of the promisee alone, without the consent, express or implied, of the promisor.”

Hamer v. Sidway
•    Is a case where one might at first thing that there was not consideration, but yes indeed there was.
•    The “assignee” in this case – a right is a species of property.  The nephew has sold his $5000 claim to some money-lender (likely for a much lesser value).
•    Family promises – not addressed, though this was between family, and at a family gathering where they had no doubt been drinking…
•    The facts of the case is not contested.
•    What is contested is the existence of consideration on the nephew’s part.
•    Uncle’s estate argues that he didn’t receive any benefit, but in actuality the nephew benefitted.
•    The law does not recognize “moral consideration” – could not argue that the uncle received the pleasure of seeing his nephew do well.
•    It is enough that the nephew gave up his legal rights based on the promise of his uncle.  This is enough of a basis to constitute consideration.
o    Consideration does not have to be a benefit traded to the promiser – it can be simply a detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other (p 258).
o    Can shorten the benefit concurred / detriment sustained formulation to simply detriment sustained.
•    There is not case where the defendant promisee did not sustain a detriment.  All benefit conferred cases are also detriment sustained.
•    In typical contracts case, what one gives up with typically benefit the other.  However, this is not a universal rule.
•    Can take a formula in currie v. Misa and collapse it into “detriment sustained”
o    This is broader.
•    P 261 is a little more concise.  It is, however, useful to take it to the next level.

Eastwood v. Kenyon
•    A case of the guardian versus the husband.
•    Sarah Eastwood left orphaned.  Guardian borrowed money to spend on her upkeep during her infancy.
•    At 21, Sarah got married.  First promised to compensate her guardian.
•    New husband then made the same promise.  Does not complete this promise
•    Must identify the promise being sued on.
o    The relevant consideration is the one that the the guardian bargained to the husband.
o    Only thing that the guardian could say is that he took care of Sarah during her infancy.
o    Could not have actually been made in consideration of the husband’s promise, as it pre-dated the promise by many years.
o    The thing which is consideration was sustained long before the promise being sued on.  Was already in the past.  Could not have been an exchange or bargain as the law demands.  The guardian is remedyless.

For tomorrow:  will return to Eastwood v. Kenyon – will do entire next section of outline. – 3 cases..

Consideration
•    Promises – the law does not enforce promises per se.
o    Promises of gifts are not enforceable.
o    The law considers the spirit of altruism rare.
•    What criteria should we use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability?
o    What would be a sensible way to do this?
o    The promises which the law should be designed to enforce should be “serious promises”.
•    Non-trivial
•    Or seriously-intended
o    This is approximately the majority approach of the world’s legal systems.
•    The majority of the world uses the civil system
•    In Qc. law, there is a proposition that goes back to Roman law, that a cause is enforceable (from Latin, causa).
•    This is a straightforward approach.  “We’ll enforce where there is a good reason.”
o    This is intuitive.  It is not a technical rule – aligns with the ordinary instinct of ordinary law.
o    This is not the approach that we take.
•    What criteria should be use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability…?
o    Could go from the intuitive approach
o    The Roman approach used formality.
•    If ppl want to know that their arrangement is enforceable, then we could have (in our legal scheme), a way to formally attach something to their promise…
•    The act of “attaching” something to the promise could act as a signal that it is meant to be enforceable.
•    Ex:  ‘A promise in writing could signify that a party meant for it to be enforced.’
•    Ex:  Signature – could make it so that something would have to be signed to be an enforceable promise [problem with this is that every contract, in order to be enforceable, would require this – even simple transactions between vendor/purchaser]
•    “stamps” – issued by gov
•    shaking hands, spitting and shaking hands
•    In Rome, the parties stood facing one another, and recited to one another the terms of the contract. Stipulatia
•    Ex:  “I _____, take you _______…”

•    We do not work under this system
o    Exception:  Promises made under seal are enforceable.  This is a hold-over of (at least) the middle ages.
•    In order to give, must have intention (animus) and transfer.
•    (as well as offer, acceptance, and consideration).
o    Some things are not susceptible to manual tradition.
•    Shares (Choses in action) – how does one give a share?

•    Primarily, we no longer use “seals”

•    Scenario:
o    Person A promises person B a plane ticket to Florida.  Person B goes out and makes purchases for the trip, racking up expenses of $150.  Person A’s circumstances change, and the offer for the ticked is revoked.
•    What if Person B sues Person A for the $150, to put them back into the circumstances where they were (it is obvious that they would lose a suit for the cost of the ticket itself).
•    The court, for the most part, does not recognize even reasonable reliance on promises.
o    Our legal system does not enforce any promises that are not contained within a contract.
•    [American language]  The law enforces bargains – something for something – a trade-off.

•    In order to approach these cases, must recontextualize
o    If the problem in front of you has nothing to do with offer/acceptance (more to do with whether there was consideration [I offer you my car for $1000; I accept]), then this type of analysis will get you nowhere.
o    Will need to identify a consideration problem, which will lead to an abandonment of offerer/offeree.
•    “I promise to convey title to my car to you if you pay me $1000.”  “I promise to pay you $1000 if you convey to me the title to your car.”
•    Same sale transaction constructed as an exchange of promises.
•    In a contract, both parties are promisers, and both are promisees.
•    When we try to analyse whether there was consideration, we need to use the language of promisers/promisees.
•    Consideration is what you paid to the other side in exchange for the other side’s promise.
•    Can view the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    By the time the parties get to court, one party is suing the other (at least).
•    Plaintiff and defendant
•    Plaintiff is always suing in his/her capacity as promisee, and the defendant is defending in his/her capacity as promiser
o    By the time we get to litigation, only one of the original two-fold promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
o    The one that is relevant is the relation whereby one allegedly promised something to the other, and broke that alleged promise.
o    In a contracts case, every defendant is an alleged promise-breaker; every plaintiff is a disappointed (alleged) promisee.
•    Mu    st understand which of the two promises is broken.
•    All contract litigation (besides the odd exception, of course…), it will always be promisee vs. promiser.
•    “Why is the plaintiff in a contracts case always suing as promisee?”
•    “Why is the defendant in a contracts case always defending in their capacity as promiser?”

Dalhousie College v. Boutilier
•    Boutilier does promise Dalhousie $5000.
•    Dalhousie, however, does not promise Boutilier anything.
o    Yes, they built building, etc., but they did not promise Boutilier that this would be in exhange for this $5000.
o    They promised him nothing – it was not a bargain; not something for something; not an exchange.
o    Even if these buildings, purchasers, etc., had been made on the strength of his promise, that does not retroactively convert his promise into a contract promise.
•    Subscription form:  Does Boutilier not say, “In consideration of the subscription of others…”?
o    Why is this not consideration?
•    His motivation is irrelevant.  Motive is not consideration.
•    They did not promise to rely on his $5000
o    Mere reliance
o    Only kind that matters is “bargained-for reliance” – if they had bargained their ability build buildings for his $5000, it might have been consideration.
•    The difference is how the parties treated the building of the building.
•    Dal did not do it in exachange for his $5000.
•    He promised, and they reacted by building the building – this is not  consideration.
**Nothing is consideration, unless the parties have handled it as consideration.**

“To hold otherwise would be to hold that a naked, voluntary promise may be converted into a binding legal contract by the subsequent action of the promisee alone without the consent, express or implied, of the promisor.” P 357 para 6.

Assignment #1
There are some agreements that seem to have the outwards signals of a contract – offer, etc.  There are some agreements to look like contracts, but courts do not enforce.
For example, “I’ll make supper tonight if you make supper tomorrow night.”  There we have offer, acceptance and consideration.  However, if the person did not make supper the second night, and was sued, the court would likely find in favour of the defendant – not because either offer, acceptance of consideration were missing, but the court would be likely to say that the arrangement was not meant to be binding legally.  This is based mostly on triviality.
This means that the parties did not intend for it to be a legal compact.  Normally, this is no defence.  It is an absurd proposition in a business or commercial context.
Where it typically comes up is in “family arrangements”.
This is where our assignment #1 comes up.
Should these agreements be legally binding?  One had to research, not the law, but one’s mind as to what human factors are relevant in such a situation.
Ultimately, it is about the Offerer.  Did the Offerer intend for the arrangement to be legally binding?
Editors of case book bring to attention two of leading cases.  Be careful when using antiquated cases as a source for modern law.  May also look at some of the books on reserve.  Ultimately not a research essay.

Letter of comfort
•    A letter from a bank or a parent company, designed to ‘comfort’ another party (like a landlord or financial institution).  They are not promises.
•    If something went wrong, the issuer of the letter would argue that they did not have legal effect.

Government program
•    Might see this argument in a non-family arrangement also in a government program setting.
•    For instance, there might be a student employment program that specified in the ad certain criteria for eligibility.
o    If too many students applied, might be sued, construing the ad as an Offer.
•    The court would have to decide whether a reasonable reader would have understood it to be an offer.  Did the government intend this ad to affect its legal relationship with the reader?

Indefiniteness
•    One of the characteristics of an Offer is that it must be sufficiently detailed that, if accepted, the court must be able to enforce it.
•    This means that the contract must have sufficient detail to be enforced by the courts.
•    By getting into a taxi and giving a destination, to which the only response is to put the car in drive, one forms an enforceable contract.  This is all implicit.
•    Uncertainty does not mean that there weren’t enough words exchanged, but that words + context ≠ enforceable.
•    “I offer to sell you my car.”  “I accept.”  No good.  Price missing.  Impossible to enforce.

•    How does a court enforce a transaction?
o    What if one received, for instance, money for a car, but didn’t provide the car?
o    How does the court, in a subsequent suit, enforce this.
o    Judges for the plaintiff, but then what?
o    The court gives to the victorious plaintiff not the thing being fought over, but the value of it.  Translates the issue into an award of money.
o    This works great for things that have a market value, like a new car, but not for things that don’t – like broken legs.

•    Indefiniteness – Courts cannot enforce a contract against a defendant unless there is enough detail present to translate a broken ‘agreement’ into a monetary value.
•    Court does not demand that it have every single detail – can import reasonable terms.  Take the view that they can’t patch up glaring holes in the contract.
•    Notes on indefiniteness (488…).
o    Sometimes, parties deliberately write contracts that are indefinite on some point.  Consider that the point isn’t a critical one.  Parties usually contemplate only the happy performance of a contract.
o    Lawyers are often the ones who have to remind their clients to include clauses “in case something goes wrong.”
o    These points are hard to agree on.
o    Difficulty lies in the fact that these points could be the sticking point in forming a contract.  This is why these are often left out…
o    Takes a risk in assuming that nothing will go wrong – most ppl do, however, keep their promises.  This is what these parties count on.  Dodgy.

•    Another situation where parties often leave something out of a contract:
o    Suppose two parties want to enter into an agreement.
o    Suppose one wants to build a hydro-electric damn
o    This party might not want to spend the money to build without a guaranteed market – may form an agreement with a market that will run many years in the future.
o    The contract is about the purchase and sale of electricity.
•    How do we know what the price of electricity will be in the future??
o    How does one construct a contract that in binding today, but leaves blank a critical term?  (The price term)
o    Such contracts are fairly common.  Long-term procurement contracts with suppliers.
•    Could include a clause to re-negotiate at set terms in the future
•    Could include a way to change the prices to fair market value at set intervals.
o    Option 1 would likely lead to a non-enforceable contract.  Option 2 would likely be enforceable.
o    Enforceability of a promise is sticky.  Can negotiate in good faith, but not agree.
o    How does one know what agreement parties would have reached?  One cannot.  Therefore, cannot translate a decision into dollars.
o    Courts have taken the obvious route, and have been inhospitable to the idea of working in good faith.
o    Whereas if there is some sort of formula, such as to be applied to annually recalculate the fair price of, for instance, electricity.
o    Labour contracts often work this way: “Consumer price index, plus 1%.”

Foley v. Classique Coaches, Ltd.
•    Basically a land purchase agreement, with a tacked-on supplementary agreement.
•    Says that the bus company must buy all petrol from the gas station of Foley, in return for selling them the gas.
•    Stops buying gas from Foley – Foley sues.  Must prove that there was a contract and that it was broken.
•    Price was left out of the contract.  1.  The vendor shall sell to the company… petrol… at a price to be agreed by the parties in writing and from time to time.
•    Those words are often fatal – an agreement to agree.  Unenforceable.
•    How does the court know what the parties would have agreed had they agreed?  Cannot calculate the loss.
•    Agreements to agree simpliciter are unenforceable.  This is an important distinction.
•    A formula to calculate what they have not agreed upon, for instance, is enforceable.
•    Agreement to agree + Mechanism is enforceable.
•    Here, it is clause 8 – the arbitration clause.
•    The arbitrator is the person that the parties have chosen, so is not imposing anything on the parties.  They are agreed by the parties to be suitable to do this.
•    Sale of Goods Act has a provision for where the court may step in, but this is an exception.  Courts do not want to do this.  This exception is statute-authorized.  Note 4&5 on page 505.
•    In order for this to apply, the contract must be a silent contract.
•    Without the arbitration clause in clause 8, one could say that it involves the sale of petrol, which places it under the jurisdiction of Sale of Goods Act.  In this situation, it does not save it, because it applies only when the parties are silent about price – in this clause, on the contrary, there is an agreement to agree.
•    Repeat:  Sale of Goods Act applies only only only where the parties have been silent on the point of price (and typically only to one-off transactions).
•    Note 1:  “The pressure to enforce will be a function of the extent to which one party has relied on the agreement, the degree to which the parties are committed…”
o    If the contract was defective at the moment of creation, then it is defective, and nothing thereafter will redeem it.
o    So this note is somewhat inaccurate.
o    However, the reality is that if parties have worked successfully under a contract for some time (as in Foley), then it is relevant to the question of whether this was a workable, enforceable contract.  Makes the argument less plausible, but not impossible.
o    Judges tend to view the fact that ppl have worked successfully under a contract somewhat pragmatically.  Theoretically, if a contract was flawed at conception, then it is flawed inherently and irredeemably.

P 496 – importance of arbitrators
•    Arbitrators are often included in standard-form contracts.  Many insurance companies now include them in their contracts as standard.
o    This is often to keep out of the public eye events that would be seen as unfavorable, and to avoid the expense of lengthy court battles.
•    Parties can then later agree to skip arbitration.  Sometimes there are clauses to set up an “arbitration court of appeal” in case one party is unhappy with an arbitration.
•    Sometimes people involved in arbitration might feel somewhat under-valued law.
o    However, arbitrators are just as bound by the law as judges are.  They use the same law.
o    They write a legal decision.  They must give the decision based on the law.
o    Should not be second-class justice.

Next day:  Walford v. Miles; Empress Towers v. Bank of NS;