Law of Contract Act

My fourth question to Mr. Williams is the amount of consideration he gave to Elite Travel Agents in exchange for the holiday. This is important because although consideration should not be adequate it should be sufficient. This in essence means that if one party to the contract gives consideration, which is exceedingly higher than that of the other party, this will invalidate the contract for lack of sufficiency as required by the law. The next question to my client is when he gave the consideration.

The time when the consideration was given is of utmost importance because past consideration is not good consideration thus nullifies the contract. I will also ask Mr. William if the contract between him and Elite Travel agents was written or verbal. If it was written I will need to know from him if he had appended the signature. If he signed the contract, it means that he is automatically bound by the contract whether he read it or not.

That is the interpretation of the law regarding signing of contracts so that if one party to the contract appends his signature he is automatically bound by all the terms to the contact including those he had not taken note of. My seventh question to Mr. Williams is whether in the contract there was any ambiguous or uncertain term. This will be important to establish because any ambiguity or uncertainty in a contract renders such a contract void. Another very important question to Mr.

William is if he actually gave the consideration or it was given by another person on his behalf. The law requires that the consideration must move from the promisee. It is therefore unacceptable in law that consideration is given by another person other than the promisee even if it is given for the benefit of the promisee. In Tweddle Vs Atkinson, it was held that an action by a son against his father to enforce his (father in law) promise could not stand since the son has not made any contributions to the agreement.

The ninth question to Mr. Williams is if he had fulfilled all obligations required of him by the contract. The position of the law is that for any party to a contract to claim breach then he must have fulfilled all obligations on his part until when he becomes aware of the breach. The tenth question to Mr. William is his mental capacity at the time of entering the contract. The importance of establishing his state of mind is to know whether he actually understood all the terms to the contract.

The position of the law is that while entering into a legally binding agreement both parties should be mentally fit and should not have any disease of mind that my prevent them from understanding the nature of the transaction or any of the terms to the contract. I will also need to know if Mr. Williams faced any kind of threats, duress, force or coercion that forced to him to unwillingly enter the contract. The law of contract clearly states that evidence of duress, coercion or threats on any one the parties to the contract nullifies the contract.