Forbearance

Forbearance involves non-action or the relinquishing of some right. An example is forbearance to sue. If two parties, A and B, believe that A has a cause of legal action against B, then, if B promises to pay a sum of money to A if A will give up the right to pursue the action, there is a valid contract to that effect: A has provided consideration by giving up his right to have recourse to law. Such action would not amount to consideration if A knew that the claim was either hopeless or invalid, as was illustrated in Wade v Simeon where it transpired that the plaintiff had no legal claim for breach of the original contract.

Promissory estoppel after Williams v Roffey Bros

It is likely that the decision in Williams v Roffey Bros will reduce the need for reliance on promissory estoppel in cases involving the renegotiation of contracts for the supply of goods or services, since performance of existing duties may now provide consideration for new promises. As was stated previously with regard to Re Selectmove Ltd however, the same claim cannot be made in relation to partial payments of debts. Those situations are still subject to the rule in Foakes v Beer as modified, uncertainly, by the operation of promissory estoppel. As estoppel is generally only suspensory in effect, it is always open to the promisor, at least in the case of continuing debts, to reimpose the original terms by withdrawing their new promise.

 Minors

A minor is a person under the age of 18 21 to 18 by the Family Reform The law tries to protect such persons by restrictingtheir contractual capacity and, thus, preventing them from entering  into disadvantageous agreements. The rules which apply are a mixture of common law and statute and depend on when the contract was made. Contracts entered into after 9 June 1987 are subject to the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987, which replaced the Infants’ Relief Act  1874. Agreements entered into by minors may be classified within three possible categories: valid; voidable; and void.

 Mental incapacity and intoxication

A contract made by a party who is of unsound mind or under the influence of drink or drugs is prima facie valid. In order to avoid a contract, such a person must show:

• that their mind was so affected at the time that they were incapable of     understanding the nature of their actions; and

• that the other party either knew or ought to have known of their disability. The person claiming such incapacity, nonetheless, must pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold and delivered to them. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 specifically applies the same rules to such people as those that are applicable to minors.

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS

All of the aspects considered previously may well be present in a particular agreement, and yet there still may not be a contract. In order to limit the number of cases that might otherwise be brought, the courts will only enforce those agreements which the parties intended to have legal effect. Although expressed in terms of the parties’ intentions, the test for the presence of such intention is once again objective, rather than subjective. For the purposes of this topic, agreements can be divided into three categories, in which different presumptions apply