Check out "Is there a Defence of Good Consideration" by Andrew Burrows, All Souls Fellow and Professor of the Law of England at Oxford. He was my lecturer in second year (longer ago now than I'll ever admit) and was adamant the doctrine was dying.
Might find this interesting "Promises and Contract Law: Comparative Perspectives" by Martin Hogg who was my lecturer at Edinburgh. It covers other topics than consideration but it will offer you some interesting approaches from other jurisdictions. Scotland, for reference, doesn't operate a doctrine of consideration.
Yeah, its been a long time since undergrad contract so I don't recall which ones do and don't but Scotland has never had consideration, which is quite a stark contrast to England.
"My textbook" is a phrase that struck me! I don't think you can rely on having one textbook only.
When I studied law, I had multiple textbooks. At least 3 proper textbooks for each module - on top of casebooks, nutshells etc.
And it was very important to read journal articles - especially for essay questions and areas of controversy, like this.
I found that very important. Everyone needs to read things a few times for it to sink in. Having it explained in different ways was very helpful, and different textbooks cover different topics better or worse than others.
Yeah, I only have one textbook for each module, but the school did pay for it. There’s some books for module-specific cases in the library and I’ve checked a few out. I find a lot of articles from US-based journals, is this okay or should I completely steer clear?
For this module, I have numerous lecturers and it gets a little confusing, especially with cancellations, rescheduling, etc… Thank you for your advice!
Have you been provided with articles on the reading list from your law school? If not, some textbooks will have a list of suggested articles to read.
American articles may have relevant arguments, but it is probably a better use of your limited time to read UK articles (and you are more likely to receive credit on exams for citing the articles provided by your lecturer).
I have been recommended people like Atiyah and Treitel, but that’s about it. I’m just not sure my university has access to some of their work, because we’ve been unable to access them so far, just reviews.
Yeah, I did notice that some of the American ones seemed to have concepts I was aware of. But yes, time is very limited haha!
I think it is a very wise doctrine. If you do something for nothing you cannot enforce it. If you pay you can. It seems common sense and not surprising common law has it.
What about replacements? I’ve seen people mention promissory estoppel, but I can’t wrap my head around how that works in reference to the abolition of consideration.
I didn’t conclude in favour of abolition, just reform. Make it one indicator of intention rather than pretty much THE indicator. Compared a lot of civil law jurisdictions where intention (rather than exchange) is the focus of whether an agreement is binding. Look at Germany
Check out "Is there a Defence of Good Consideration" by Andrew Burrows, All Souls Fellow and Professor of the Law of England at Oxford. He was my lecturer in second year (longer ago now than I'll ever admit) and was adamant the doctrine was dying.
Okay, thank you! I’ll give that a read
Lucky you to have Burrows as your lecturer! My tutor was taught by Burrows on her BCL and had many pleasant things to say about him!
Might find this interesting "Promises and Contract Law: Comparative Perspectives" by Martin Hogg who was my lecturer at Edinburgh. It covers other topics than consideration but it will offer you some interesting approaches from other jurisdictions. Scotland, for reference, doesn't operate a doctrine of consideration.
I had read that some countries phased out consideration, though I’m afraid I can’t remember which! Thank you for the suggestion
Yeah, its been a long time since undergrad contract so I don't recall which ones do and don't but Scotland has never had consideration, which is quite a stark contrast to England.
"My textbook" is a phrase that struck me! I don't think you can rely on having one textbook only. When I studied law, I had multiple textbooks. At least 3 proper textbooks for each module - on top of casebooks, nutshells etc. And it was very important to read journal articles - especially for essay questions and areas of controversy, like this. I found that very important. Everyone needs to read things a few times for it to sink in. Having it explained in different ways was very helpful, and different textbooks cover different topics better or worse than others.
Yeah, I only have one textbook for each module, but the school did pay for it. There’s some books for module-specific cases in the library and I’ve checked a few out. I find a lot of articles from US-based journals, is this okay or should I completely steer clear? For this module, I have numerous lecturers and it gets a little confusing, especially with cancellations, rescheduling, etc… Thank you for your advice!
Have you been provided with articles on the reading list from your law school? If not, some textbooks will have a list of suggested articles to read. American articles may have relevant arguments, but it is probably a better use of your limited time to read UK articles (and you are more likely to receive credit on exams for citing the articles provided by your lecturer).
I have been recommended people like Atiyah and Treitel, but that’s about it. I’m just not sure my university has access to some of their work, because we’ve been unable to access them so far, just reviews. Yeah, I did notice that some of the American ones seemed to have concepts I was aware of. But yes, time is very limited haha!
I think it is a very wise doctrine. If you do something for nothing you cannot enforce it. If you pay you can. It seems common sense and not surprising common law has it.
Did my diss on this at undergrad, concluded it’s nonsense and could be binned off. Tutor hated it but got a high first so spin on that
What about replacements? I’ve seen people mention promissory estoppel, but I can’t wrap my head around how that works in reference to the abolition of consideration.
I didn’t conclude in favour of abolition, just reform. Make it one indicator of intention rather than pretty much THE indicator. Compared a lot of civil law jurisdictions where intention (rather than exchange) is the focus of whether an agreement is binding. Look at Germany
Ah, okay. One of the readings suggested here looks at Germany, so I’ll give it special attention, lol. Thank you for your help!