1 (a) Consideration is an an inducement given to enter into a contract that is sufficient to render the

promise enforceable in the courts. The technical requirement is either a detriment incurred by the
person making the promise or a benefit received by the other person. Thus, the person seeking to
enforce the promise must have paid, or bound himself to pay, money, parted with goods, spent time
in labour, or foregone some profit or legal right. In a contract for the sale of goods, the money paid
is the consideration for the vendor, and the property sold is the consideration for the purchaser.
The doctrine that a consideration is necessary if a contract is to be enforceable has a number of
functions in the law of contracts. In addition to providing evidence that a contract exists,
consideration also has the cautionary function of guarding the promisor against ill-considered
action; the deterrent function of discouraging transactions of questionable utility; and a channelling
function of enabling interested persons to distinguish particular types of transactions.
Although the doctrine of consideration is unique to common law, these functions are also performed
in other modern systems of law.
(b) EXECUTORY CONSIDERATION
Consideration is called "executory" where there is an exchange of promises to perform acts in the
future, eg a bilateral contract for the supply of goods whereby A promises to deliver goods to B at a
future date and B promises to pay on delivery. If A does not deliver them, this is a breach of contract
and B can sue. If A delivers the goods his consideration then becomes executed.

EXECUTED CONSIDERATION
If one party makes a promise in exchange for an act by the other party, when that act is completed,
it is executed consideration, eg in a unilateral contract where A offers £50 reward for the return of
her lost handbag, if B finds the bag and returns it, B's consideration is executed.
PAST CONSIDERATION
If one party voluntarily performs an act, and the other party then makes a promise, the consideration
for the promise is said to be in the past. The rule is that past consideration is no consideration, so it
is not valid and cannot be used to sue on a contract. For example, A gives B a lift home in his car.
On arrival B promises to give A £5 towards the petrol. A cannot enforce this promise as his
consideration, giving B a lift, is past.
(c) Equittable Estoppel is a legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact
owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, or denial. It protects one party from being
harmed by another party's voluntary conduct. Voluntary conduct may be an action, silence,
Acquiescence, or concealment of material facts. One example of equitable estoppel due to a party's
acquiescence is found in Lambertini v. Lambertini, 655 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1995).
In the late 1950s, Olga, who was married to another man, and Frank Lambertini met and began
living together in Argentina. Olga and Frank hired an attorney in Buenos Aires, who purported to
Divorce Olga from her first husband and marry her to Frank pursuant to Mexican law. The
Lambertinis began what they thought was a married life together, and soon produced two children.
In 1968, they moved to the United States and became Florida residents.
In 1992, Olga sought a divorce from Frank. She petitioned the Florida court for sole possession of
the marital home and temporary Alimony, which the court granted. Frank sought a rehearing,
arguing that the Mexican marriage was not a valid legal marriage and was therefore void. Though
Frank won with this argument in the trial court, the appellate court reversed, holding that Frank was
equitably estopped from arguing that the Mexican marriage was invalid. According to the appellate
court, Frank and Olga had held themselves out as a married couple for more than 30 years, lived
together, raised two children, and owned property jointly. Both Frank and Olga apparently believed
all along that the Mexican marriage was legal, and it was only when Olga filed for divorce that
Frank discovered and chose to rely on its invalidity. The appellate court granted Olga her divorce,
the house, and the temporary alimony. Frank's acquiescence for three decades—holding himself out
as being married to Olga—prevented him from denying the marriage's existence.
There are several specific types of equitable estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a contract law
doctrine. It occurs when a party reasonably relies on the promise of another party, and because of
the reliance is injured or damaged. For example, suppose a restaurant agrees to pay a bakery to
make 50 pies. The bakery has only two employees. It takes them two days to make the pies, and
they are unable to bake or sell anything else during that time. Then, the restaurant decides not to
buy the pies, leaving the bakery with many more pies than it can sell and a loss of profit from the
time spent baking them. A court will likely apply the Promissory Estoppel doctrine and require the
restaurant to fulfill its promise and pay for the pies.An estoppel certificate is a written declaration
signed by a party who attests, for the benefit of another party, to the accuracy of certain facts
described in the declaration. The estoppel certificate prevents the party who signs it from later
challenging the validity of those facts. This type of document is perhaps most common in the
context of mortgages, or home loans. If one bank seeks to purchase mortgages owned by another
bank, the purchasing bank may request the borrowers, or homeowners, to sign an estoppel
certificate establishing (1) that the mortgage is valid, (2) the amount of principal and interest due as
of the date of the certificate, and (3) that no defenses exist that would affect the value of the
mortgage. After signing this certificate, the borrower cannot dispute those facts.
Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to
claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal
actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A
defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction,
Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions
for the worse.
The court applied the doctrine of laches in People v. Heirens, 648 N.E.2d 260 (Ill. 1st Dist. Ct.
App. 1995). William Heirens pleaded guilty, in 1946, to three murders, for which he received three
consecutive life terms in prison. Heirens sought court relief numerous times in the ensuing years. In
1989, 43 years after his conviction, Heirens filed his second postc onviction petition seeking,
among other things, relief from his prison sentence due to ineffective counsel and the denial of DUE
PROCESS at the time of his arrest. The court found that all the witnesses and attorneys involved in
Heirens's case had since died. Laches precluded Heirens from bringing his action because,
according to the court, it would be "difficult to imagine a case where the facts are more remote and
where the state might be more prejudiced by the passage of time."
2 (a)

Encyclopaedia Brittanica
Law Teacher: The Law Essay Professionals