foreign we shall discuss the modifications of the common law rules on consideration by Ghana's contract Acts or 1960 at 25. my Ghana's contract at online team 60 at 25. now you recall that in our previous lecture we defined what consideration is and then we discuss a number of principles governing consideration you remember we indicated that consideration may not be adequate but it must be sufficient and over here what we meant was that the courts will not delve into the bargain of the parties to decide for the parties was the actual value of a particular consideration is supposed to be so we indicated that as far as the law is concerned when parties agree on something which is of volume with the alone recognizes to be a valid form of consideration the courts will not interfere to say that this constitution is true cheap as compared to what the other party is getting from the other party so we know concentration may not be adequate but they might be sufficient my sufficiently means that whatever is in person must quantify to do something which in law the law recognizes as a valid form of consideration now it will interest you to know that under the common law there were some conducts which did not amount to valid forms of consideration there were some conducts which did not amount to good consideration there were some contacts we did not amount to sufficient consideration so it is good that we see this particular conducts once did not amount to sufficient Constitution under the common law and indicate and explain why the common law did not recognize such conducts as valid forms of consideration and then we shall also indicate how these rules have been modified by Gunners contract Act of 1960 and 25. in other words There are rules under the common law which have indicated that some particular conduct will not amount to valid forms of consideration but in Ghana they shall amount to valid forms of consideration in Ghana they shall amount to sufficient contribution because of reforms that have been introduced by Daniel's contract Act of 1960 Acts 25. now the first point I shall discuss relates to promises made by manforward to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified period of time you remember when we were dealing with offering acceptance that a person can make an offer to a particular person that I hereby offer my vehicle to you for sales at the price of five thousands and this offer shall remain open for the next five weeks now I made the offer that I'm offering my car to you for sale at 5 000 cities and I accompanying the offer with the promise that I'll keep the oven open for you to accept within a period of six weeks now let us say that in the third week another common law in so far as you have not given me any form of consideration to keep this promise open for the six weeks is not paid me anything you're not giving me anything of value which is supposed to bind me to keep the promise open for six weeks and that the common law I can revoke the offer at any time before acceptance means that another common law appointments made by not the law that he shall keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified period of time that promise shall not be binding against God for all unless though for me has provided some form of consideration for the promise so let's say I make a common law if I make a promise to you and I'm offering my house for sale and I promise to keep this upper offer open for six months the common law is expecting that you play me some commitment or you will give me something of value which will bind me to keep the offer open for six months but if you haven't given me anything that will bind me for the six months period under the common law that promise will not be binding on both row and the overall can always revoke the offer the offerer can sell the house to a different person in the second month and the first of a week cannot do anything about it this is the common law rule that a promise made by law then he shall keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified period of time that promise shall not be binding against us rule unless lovely has provided some form of consideration and this common law position is evidenced in the case of roots leg and balance wouldn't that is called I owe you c l e d g e Woodlands versus grants Grant is g-r-a-n-t so we pronounce and Banks 1828 130 England reports at page 920. that is there a common law position but this position has been modified by a Ghana's contracts out of 1960 at 25. section 8-1 of Ghana's contracts Act of 1960 at 25 but why is that if you go and make a promise to keep another open for a specified period of time let's say about eight months and the other party has not given any form of consideration according to Ghana's contract and that promise shall be binding on you and it shall not become unenforceable merely because the other party has failed to provide some common participation in other words in Ghana when you make a promise to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified period of time and there's some evidence there is some evidence that don't forget accepted that promise you made to keep the over open for eight months for 10 months or 12 months if there's some evidence that the offer me accepted that promise you made to keep the offer open for eight months then I promise you made to keep the offer open for acceptance that promise shall not be invalid merely because the other parties are still to provide some form of constipation me that's in Ghana where he become how far he accompanies with a promise to keep the offer open for acceptance that promise you have made to keep your offer open for acceptance it shall be binding against the pharaoh and it shall not be invalid nearly because the offeree has not provided any form of consideration and to the language of section 81 of the contracts Act of 1960 at 25 is as follows I promise to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified time shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of the absence of consideration thereof so that is the modification so the common law rule that was laid down in good Legend brands so remember that the common law was that I promise to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified period of time that problem shall not be binding against all in the absence of consideration flowing from the from the sea but in Ghana Section 8 subsection one of the contract acts of 1960. and 25 has modified this common law position now to demonstrate this particular exception very well I shall refer you to the memorandum to the contracts out of 1960 at 25. to demonstrate and explain the section H1 very well the explanation memorandum to the contract out of 1960 and 25 had the following illustration and I read a offers to sell his house to before an amounts and say that the offer will remain open for one week before the week expires he sells the house to X provided that there's some evidence from which efforts can be fair that being has accepted his promise to keep the offer open not the offer to sell the house he will have an action against a for bridge of s contracts and buses provided that there is some evidence from which a course can inferred that B has accepted A's promise to keep the offer open not the offer to sell the house be will have a nation against a for bridge of this contract so you the professor you also made a promise to keep the offer open for eight months if there's an if there's some evidence that I have accepted this promise you have made to me to keep the offer open for eight months then the law says that that promise you need to keep the offer open for eight months it shall be binding on you even though I have not provided any form of consideration for that particular promise that is the full import of section 81 of the contracts Act of 1960 at 25. the next rule we shall look at relates to the Past payment of a debt now this is a very interesting provision now a common law if adapter its own accreditor and the Creditor say that you are owing me five thousand dollars pay me two thousand dollars today and I shall weave in the outstanding three thousand dollars our common law if the database the two thousand dollars and later on the Creditor decides to shoot the data for the outstanding three thousand dollars the common law recognizes that the better may see that I know the one yourself who agreed with me that you are waving now standing three thousand dollars because I remember I was owing you five thousand dollars and you told me that you are waving three thousand and that I should pay two thousand dollars in full satisfaction of my indebtedness to you so the question that I wrote in the common law was whether when a person makes a promise that he is waving of doing the part payment of a debts and like I said in this case a person making the promise that he's moving the three thousand dollars so the common Law's position was to find out whether a promise to win or to forgo the part payment of a debt whether that promise to waive or forego the path element of the debt whether it shall be binding against the promised even though there may be no considerations flowing from the policy now that's a quite interesting position because under the common law when you are owing me five thousand dollars and I said pay me two thousand dollars and I shall weigh the three thousand dollars that promise is not binding on me meaning that I could always come back to you and say that my friend give me back my money and you cannot tell me that that I made an earlier promise that I shall not Sue you to enforce the million three thousand dollars a common law a promise made by a creditor to wave or to forgo the part statement of the debt not promised to weave or to forgo it shall not be binding against the promise all unless there's some form of consideration flowing from the promisee a common law a promise to wave or to forgo the parliament of the depth that promise shall not be binding against the promise all unless there's some concentration flowing from diplomacy so if you are saying that I have raised three thousand dollars show me what you have done for me show me what you have done for me as consideration to marriage me within that three thousand dollars if you haven't done anything another common law that promise to wave or to forgo the apparent payment of the depth shall not May binding on the promised soul and the promise all can always see you to recover the amount he promised to weave this rule which is of great input in the common room was laid down in the case popular referred to as the pain levels case final response p i n n e l apostrophe s peniel's case it was reported as far back as near 1602 that is based on the position that a promise to waive or to forgo the Power payment of a debt that promise shall not be binding on the promise all unless there is some form of consideration flowing from the pharmacy and this rule that was laid down in the penthouse case has also been affirmed in the case of folks versus being folks versus b w e r reported in the year 1884. appeals cases have been 605 now I shall read out the facts of this case and highlight to you how it relates to this particular principle now the very first of this case are that the plaintiff in this case actually was someone that the defendant was indebted to to our amount of money about two thousand and ninety pounds now in order for the and this this indefinite I lose when the plaintiffs to the defendants in the high courts and obtained judgments against the defendants for this amount of 2090 pounds together with interests you know usually when you go to court and you win judgment against a person because to ask you to recover from this person the principal son of 2090 pounds together with interest from the date of defaults or something to the date of final papers you know those things so the plaintiff in this case have already yeah but I'm asking against the defendants in the high court they're not saying that means for a principal some about 2090 pounds to get our interests now the plaintiff in this case entered into an agreement with the defendant to pay the debts and they give an instrumental plan on how the defendants can be paying the money the sap 500 pounds immediately pay 150 pounds on occasions and keep on paying it in installments until the whole sum of the 2090 pounds has been paid so the defendant is owing 2090 pounds together with interest but the plaintiff has entered into an argument to the defendants but you know what pay 500 pounds immediately then with respect to the balance we're paying 150 pounds on two occasions in each year keep on doing this until the full amount of the 2090 pounds have been paid now the critical finish looks about this agreement in folks and beers that they did not cater for the payment of the interest when they were settling the debts so the defendant also paid the full amount but after he paid it the plaintiff then went to shoot claiming their interests and say that the agreement they entered into doing cater for the interest it meanwhile he had got to send an agreement saying that he's going to accept payment of the debts by paying the principal and paying outstanding that in installments until the full amount has been played now the defendant has gone I had to pay the very amount that was mentioned the agreement not in the 2090 pounds now you definitely are saying that you are coming to know you for interest meanwhile in the agreement you signed you didn't mention is that I had taken interests so the question was that agreement the plaintiff has signed where he had agreed more or less to wave or to forego the part payments in this case are going to waive the interest that was outstanding whether that agreement was binding and enforceable against the promisor the god felt that the defendants had not provide any form of consideration for the promise to waive the outstanding interest that you haven't provided any form of consideration have you gone to punish us who are you going to bring this house have you got to give him something you haven't given any form of consideration for that promise to wave the Power payment on that debt and so that promise to wave or to forgo the power payments of bad debts that it shall not be binding against the plaintiff and so the hotel that the building could suits you to recover the bad payments of that debt this is the common law who on par payment of a debt is saying that when a promise is made by a person to wave or forgo the power payments of the debts under the common law that promise shall not be binding against the promisor unless there's some positivation flowing from the for me see and this is supported by the case of Pino's case as well as folks and beer now this rule has been modified by Ghana's contract acts of 1960 at 25. they have been modified by Section 8 subsection two of the contract Act of 1916 at 25. and this is what section 8 session 2 over 25 says and I quote foreign debt or part of a debt or the performance of some other contractor or legal obligation shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of the absence of contribution therefore I'll take it three times so the second time a promise to wave the par payment of a depth or a part of a depth or the performance of some other contractual or legal obligation shall not deliver it as a contract by reading only of the absence of any Constitution therefore again a promise to win the payment of the debts or parts of a debt or the performance of some other contraction or legal obligation shall not be invalid as a contract by reason only of the absence of constitution therefore but in Section 8 2009 the standards that in Ghana when you make a promise to wave or to forego the bad payment of the debt that promise shall not be invalid as a contract merely because there's no consideration flowing from the other parts that permits a wave or forgo the Power payment of a debt that permission will not be invalid merely because other party has failed to provide any form of consideration it means that in Ghana when you make a promise they are waving Department of the depth that promise they are making it shall be binding against you even though the other person has not provided any form of contribution this is the second modification that has been introduced by a Ghana's contract act 1960 13-5 in the common law rules of conversation to discuss two modifications so far first is that we have indicated that a promise to keep an offer open for acceptance under the common law that promise shall not be binding against them from the soul unless there's some conservation flowing from the policy over there we said it was laid down in the case of Ruthless and glands and we said that it has been modified by Section 8 South section one of the contract out of 1960 and 25. you look at the next move that and at the common law a promise to wave or forego the Power payment of the deaths that promise sound not The Binding against the promised unless there's some first contribution flowing from the pharmacy and when you say this common law rule has been laid down in the penthouse case and has also been applied in the case of folks and there we have seen how it has Modified by Section 8 subsection two of the contract out of 1960 at 25. so we have two exceptions so far two modifications let's move on to the third one there are some considerations we referred as pre-existing legal obligations and let me explain this it could be that I'm a teacher in the University well it could be that um I'm a teacher in the university and then I have entered into an argument with the students or the University to lecture them for a semester it means that I'm under an existing contractual obligation I own the students a contractual obligation to perform a particular duty to them so since I owe them a particular Duty already now when those students come and promise me that they are going to pay me five thousand dollars as possibility for me to teach them that same horse remember this is the same cause that I owe the obligation to the students to lecture them because I'm a lecturer in the University so I'm under an existing obligation to already provide elections to them now I'm going to enter into another argument with them where I'm agreeing to render that same service to them for them to pay me five thousand dollars not sometimes it happens go to some places the letter I'll say that my friend today if you don't pay me this amounts of money I'm not going to lecture you then people will contribute and come and pay the lecture now when the lecture now go to sue the students for that amount of money the question will be whether the lecturer has provided some good consideration for that particular promise and the lecture provided any form of good consideration for that particular promise now the lawyer that when you perform an existing obligation something you already bound to perform the performance of a pre-existing obligation you are already bouncing into them in the first place so the performance of that pre-existing obligation is shall not in law amount to sufficient consideration for another promise in other words by adverting of the facts that electron was already bound to perform that obligation to the students the performance of that pre-existing legal obligation so I'm not surprised as a valid form of consideration that will support the enforcement of the promise against the people the students who promised him that they will pay him five thousand dollars for teaching him so under the common law I promise a person makes to perform a pre-existing legal obligation that shall not among the sufficient Constitution for another promise existing legal obligation the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation shall not amount you a valid form of consideration to support the enforcement of another promise so the example I gave relates to pre-existing obligations owed to the promisor there are different different types of this pre-existing legal obligations it could be a pre-existing existing legal obligation or to the department so so the example I gave of the lecturer already owing a duty to the students so this is a pre-existing legal duties now in this case when the lecture performs that obligation of going to lecture obligation so I'm not among new consideration that will support the enforcement of a promise so let me give another example let's say that a carpenter has you have entered into a contract with the carpenter to construct maybe some weddings for you at the price of hundred thousand dollars maybe it's foreign and he's supposed to finish the contacts Within five months in the fourth month when you realize all your guests were coming you see that my friend if you don't promise to pay me an extra fifty thousand dollars I will not finish this week and if I don't finish at this point I know you don't have money to go and get any other person you know the amount of money you start to lose if you don't complete it had another agreement when you are going to pay an extra fifty thousand dollars to the carpenter now when the capital finishes the construction of the quadrups the question will be whether you can see you to enforce that extra fifty thousand dollars that you promised him the Lord will see that the performance of that obligation the construction of the word loops that obligation was something that the capital already owed you a duty to perform so the performance of that pre-existing legal obligation it shall not amount to a valid form of consideration to enforce that promise you made to pay the extra fifty thousand dollars the performance of that consideration of constructing the word Loops the carpenter was already bound to perform that obligation so since it was already bound he cannot perform what was already bound to support the enforcement of that promise you need to pay the extra 50 000 donors so I'm coming along the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation all to the promise All Shall Not amount to good consideration another way you can also arise HP existing obligation imposed by the law so let's say you're a public officer or the law is the one that is imposing that particular Duty on you let's say a police officer and the law has already imposed upon a duty to protect somebody so if you look at the case of Collins and Godfrey for example in that case a person has been supined to come and testify in God to give evidence what so a con suprina has been served on somebody to appear and go to testify by the party to the case told that person that my friend if you come and testify I promise to pay you an amount of money because I need your evidence as a matter of crucial importance so this person has already miserable the rich of subpoena and was already bound to go and enter the box and testify but because I also need this evidence I said I'm a friend go and testify so that I'll pay you the person goes to classifier comes out none decides to sue to enforce the promise I made to him to pay the amount of money that what you want to perform that testifying you want to testify you were already bound to then perform it the law had already imposed a duty upon you to go and perform it so if you don't perform what you're already bound to do something that law is already imposed on you you cannot use that one as a basis to sue me to enforce the promise I made you to pay you five thousand dollars so now the common law the performance of a pre-existing legal or public duty shall not amount to valid form of consideration it's another amount to sufficient consideration and so the common law is that the performance of a pre-existing legal or public duty shall not amount to good consideration to your police officer you're already about to protect me I call your police tell me about this person that's the address already if I promise to pay you 5 000 cities into your married the person disregard that person and I want to see me for that 5000 cities the lawyer that the performance of a pre-existing legal or public duty that performance shall not among a valid form of consideration that would enforce Town Support Enforcement of the performance I made to you so nobody looked at the case of Collins and Godfrey and also look at the Glass book Brothers limited versus LA Morgan County Council reported in 1925 accused cases had been 217. the third legal obligation we existing legal obligation is a pre-existing legal obligation onto a third party so there are times when I already owe an obligation to a dead party let's say I hold the obligation to accompany I work with to help locate a particular item let's say an item is lost and I work with an insurance company and I'm assigned with the responsibility of locating that particular loss item so this is an obligation I owe to the insurance company and let's say a total stranger somebody who's not working with my company they are not a data of my company you also come to me come and tell me that you are challenging me if I can find this particular item you pay me five thousand dollars now what you've come to promise me about that lost item you want me to better find find this is something that I'm already buying I'm already from Travel Bound to my insurance company to help locate it so this is an obligation I already owe to my company by you the stranger you have come the other promise me that you also pay me an amount of money if I can help you can if I can find that same channel now this creates a scenario of every existing obligation I own to attend party so let's say for purpose of example my campaign is called insurance company limits on your insurance company limited and I'm called Kofi and you are called Amma so there are three parties involved the insurance company is on your insurance company limited me the staff over there I'm called Kofi and you in the third party so I already have an agreement or I already owe an obligation to the insurance company to help locate the missing vehicle the new a third party a stranger you come and tell me that I should help you find this MB because you won't use the vehicle for a photo shoots now between Kofi and Amma between you coffee and Amma let's promise you've come to me too in this promise that this argument is entered into where I'm supposed to help me locate the vehicle this is an obligation I already own to a third party which is on your Insurance Company Limited so and the common law there are some questions about whether the performance of a pre-existing legal Duty that you owe to a third party the performance of a pre and using legal Duty that I go to a third party in this case owner Insurance Company Limited all other performance can become consideration to support the promise that armor made to him in other words if I come look at the vehicle can I ask you a man to recover the five thousand dollars you promised me if I see her can she tell me that man after all I was already bound to now Insurance Company Limited to locate the vehicle and at the common law the performance of a pre-existing legal duty all to a third party amounts to unvalid form of contribution the most sufficient consideration to support the enforcement of the promise and this is evidence in the case of shadow there's a shadow response s-h-a-w-s-h-a-d-w-e-l-law reported as far back as in the year 1860. so under the common law the performance of a pre-existing legal Duty owed to a third party amount to good consideration so I think three kinds of pre-existing legal duties under the common law one is a pre-existing legal Duty also the promisor and in the common law it will not amount to good consideration again every existing legal or public duty under the common law it will not amount to good contribution the only one that would amount good consideration is a pre-existent legal duty to go to a third party that one will amount you a valid form of consideration now there has been a modification done to this provision and that the Ghana's contract Act of 1960 act 25 by section 9. remember Michael said the general position under the common law is that a promise a person makes they perform a pre-existing legal obligation that performance shall not amount to sufficient consideration for another promise how have section 9 modified this common law position section 9 says that the performance Among Us or the promise to perform an act may be sufficient Constitution for another promise notwithstanding that the performance of that act may already be enjoined by some legal Beauty whether enforceable by the other party or not again the performance of an act or the public to perform an act may be sufficient consideration for another promise notwithstanding that the performance of that act may already be enjoined by some legal using poorer enforceable by the other person or not so you mean under section 9 of Ghana's contracts after 1960 at 25. the performance of a Duty that's you're already born to perform the performance of the obligation is shall suffered as good consideration even though you are already born by a law to perform that particular Beauty there's a Ghanaian case that I can I invite you to look at is the Ghanaian case of Cassie Casey versus shaman Casey versus both k-e-s-s-i-e that is sermon sermon is not c-h-e -r-m-a-n-t Casey versus Shaman and another is reported in 1973 shaman so this is another modification than the common law rules on consideration by section 9 of Gardner's contract Act of 1960 at 25. then the next one which I'll look at is the common law router says that consideration must move from the community as we've seen in the kit of Twitter and Atkinson versus Atkinson Atkinson is what ATK i n s o n so versus Atkinson reported in 1861. now these are the facts of Twitter and Atkins that you can get from the case book written by Joe Pool and contracts law now pay critical attention to the knees don't twiddle and William Guy they each agreed to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff in consideration of the place of Mind Guy's daughter of native and then the the husband and then the bride so two people are going to marry and their father their expected father father in laws they are going to be an amount of money to the plaintiff that is widow's son if we don't go ahead and marry Guy's daughter my guy refuse to pay the amount of money and then to those who sued the executor and my friend these two people these two for this they all agree that they will pay me an amount of money guys he doesn't want to pay so I'm suing you as an executor pay me the money now pay critical attention to the Keys now the promise was made by the two fathers the father of the of the man and the father of the woman now what consideration did this son what did he provide for this he didn't provide anything the agreement to pay him the amount of money it was for his benefits but he didn't provide any condition for it he was just there and he said to pay this amount of money but you are not providing anything of value to for that personal promise so the portal that since concentrate sin had not moved from the promising that promising over here is the person for whose benefits the promises me so the person for whose benefits the promise is made in this case is the the groom the husband so the question that he has not provided any form of constitution so he cannot Shield to afford that promise to give him the amount of money so take those the promises in this case is the person for whose benefits the promise is made two for this I agree that they will pay you the Sun but some what have you done to marry the amount of money you haven't given anything in return so it's a problem that makes you so the person for whose benefits the promise is made in this case is the one who called The Promise he the court is saying that since that son did not provide any form of consideration then he will not see you to enforce that promise that is why we see another common law that contribution must move from the policy now the common law of Constitution must move from the policy and we see them in Twitter versus Atkinson baseball has been modified by section 10. afghanist contract acts of 1960 at 25 and what have you seen he says that no promise shall be invalid as a contract by reason only that the consideration for it is supplied by some other than the policy that no promise I'll be invalid as a contract by reason only that the conservation for it is applied by some other person and the promising it means that if two people agree to confirm benefits of me even though I had a promise see I'm not the one that has provided the consideration even though I haven't provided any consideration I'm not the one who provided the consideration I can still feel you to enforce that promise that is the case of session 10 afghanist contracts out of 1916 at 25. that says that no promise shall be invalid as a contract merely because the consideration for it is applied by someone other than the promising in other words consideration did not move from the policy in Ghana so what we have done so far in this lecture is that we have identified the reforms that have been introduced into the common rules of concentration by Ghana's contracts out of 1960 at 25. we started our discussion by referring to the common law rule we saw in Woodland events that indicated that a promise page to keep an offer open for acceptance for a specified time that promise I will not be binding on the promise all in the absence of consideration flowing from the pharmacy acts of 1960 at 25. session two which indicates that another common law another complete uh modify the common law position under the common law what we saw in Pennell's case and folks MBA is that when you make a promised wave or to forego the path payment of the debt under the common law that promise is not binding against you the promisor unless there's some consideration flowing from them from you see 1960 and 25. and then I wanted to look at the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation now for the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation remember we said that another common law General generally the performance of a pre-existing legal obligation shall not amount to sufficient Constitution I have seen how that has Modified by section 9 Gunner's contract Act of 1960 and 25. and a final modification we looked at was the king of thrones Kingston which can emphasized that consideration must move from the promising and we've seen how that has been modified by section 10 of Ghana's contract after 1960 .