If the parties do not make an explicit statement about how the subsequent agreement interacts with the original, it can be inferred from the circumstances if the original contract has been terminated. The parties may have intended the subsequent agreement to replace the original contract, or they may have intended to change the terms of the original contract.  Whether the agreement should replace or amend the original is a „matter of degree.“  Depending on the circumstances of the case, different aspects may be considered by a court. Concut v. Worrell  illustrates some factors that can be assessed in employment relationships. The consideration should be the task of one`s own right to use the courts – to prosecute. But what would happen if the initial action was unfounded – have you given up on anything? The assumption is that you have it, unless it can be determined that the action was launched without good faith. This could be difficult to prove. Here we have a contractor who has signed a contract for the renovation of an apartment building. It subcontracted the carpentry work for 20,000. The claimant completed some of the work and received interim payments of $16,200.
The applicant then concluded that he was in financial difficulty and that he had accepted a price that was too low. The defendant became aware of it and, in order to avoid the punitive provisions of the main contract and the disruption associated with the search for another subcontractor, agreed to pay the plaintiff an additional $10,300 to complete the work. The defendant`s representative initiated this ancillary agreement and realized that the plaintiff`s initial price was too low. Only 1500 were paid according to the ancillary agreement. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to obtain the additional money. The counterparty portion of a contract is the promised price to be paid in return for the elements provided for in the contract. Unless the promise is deemed to have been made in fact, it is legally binding unless it is supported by consideration. In shipping, most of the people involved are big players.
Shipowners, freight forwarders, owners of goods. What the courts have really looked at is who is best placed to insure – to bear the risk? If you know exactly where the risk lies, it can be covered by appropriate insurance. If this decision makes it clear that the owners are the right people to take out the insurance, freight forwarders and longshoremen do not have to cover the risk and this cost factor does not have to be included in freight rates. Also avoid the complications of multiple insurance policies on a single risk. No matter at what stage the additional costs occur – the end user will do it anyway. The other judge in this case held that the requirement of our law that a free contract must be sealed is not unreasonable. There are certain situations in which an act, promise or abstention in contract law cannot be considered a legal consideration. In these situations, there is an obligation to do these things, and they are either done: consideration means that a promise made to you is not necessarily enforceable in court unless you can prove that you gave something in return. Suppose I promise to deliver a ton of gravel to you next week – you prepare your shovel and funeral mound, and I don`t show up.
I probably wouldn`t be liable to you for damages because you didn`t return anything, and just preparing your funeral mound wouldn`t be reliable enough to make it enforceable. However, if you said at the time of the agreement that you would pay me $10 a tonne for gravel, that would be a sufficient consideration. A promise of payment is sufficient to be considered a gift, even if the promise must not be kept for some time. It follows that the considerations must start from the promising, but from the promising. For example, if Promisor (A) asks the promisor (B) to (C) pay a sum of money to B in exchange for A`s promise, that will be a good consideration. However, if Promisor (A) (C) asks to make a payment in exchange for the promise from A to B, this is not a good consideration (there is no inconvenience for B in such a case). In the case of joint commitments, it is sufficient that the consideration is provided by one of the parties. This leads to interesting problems.
Can something be a good counterparty for this contract if it has already been considered for a previous contract? In this case, you can only promise to do what you have already committed to do again…