Consideration in Contracts: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Legal Principles Category:Small Claims Category: Contact Law ==The legal requirement for Consideration in Contact== ==Past Consideration not Valid== ==...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Legal Principles]]
[[Category:Legal Principles]]
[[Category:Small Claims]]
[[Category:Small Claims]]
[[Category: Contact Law]]
[[Category:Contract Law]]


==The legal requirement for Consideration in Contact==
==The legal requirement for Consideration in Contact==

Revision as of 22:26, 21 December 2019


The legal requirement for Consideration in Contact

Past Consideration not Valid

Healthy Lifestyle Medical Group Inc. v. Chand Morningside Plaza Inc., 2019 ONCA 6 (CanLII)

[7] As noted, the motion judge observed that the defence that past consideration is not valid consideration could have been a genuine issue for trial, but she refused to consider it. In our view she erred. The motion judge did not consider the principles by which a court assesses the adequacy of pleadings. In considering whether a pleading discloses a reasonable defence, a court is obliged to read the pleading generously to allow for drafting deficiencies, and if the defence has some chance of success, it must be permitted to proceed. A statement of defence is required to contain the material facts on which a party will rely. Here the facts on which the legal argument about consideration would be based were alleged.

King Road Paving and Landscaping Inc. v Plati, 2017 ONSC 557 (CanLII)

[65] Given these conclusions I do not have to consider whether the price increase in the second or third contract would be enforceable even if the defendants had agreed to the increase. Where parties agree to an increased price there must be new consideration because “past consideration is not good consideration”. For example, in Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd. (1976) 1976 CanLII 672 (ON CA), 12 O.R. 19; 67 D.L.R.( 3d) 606 (Ont. C.A.), a steel supplier, having contracted to supply a contractor with steel at a specified price, in the course of a contract asked a higher price for the same steel. The contractor, who urgently needed the steel, agreed. The steel was supplied, but the contractor refused to pay the increased price. The steel supplier sued for the increased amount. His action failed on the ground that the supplier had given no consideration for the contractor’s promise to pay an increased price for the steel.