This short assignment will provide an overview of the facts and legal holdings for several important cases in the English law of contract. The cases have been identified based on the names provided in the question. It is assumed that "Edward v. Edward" refers to Edwards v Skyways Ltd and "Currie v. Miss" refers to Currie v Misa. These cases establish fundamental principles regarding the intention to create legal relations and the definition of consideration. It has not been possible to identify the case referred to as "Marfov. Eduseu" as this does not correspond to a recognised case citation.
Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
This case is a leading authority on the presumption of an intention to create legal relations in a commercial or business context.
Facts
The claimant, Mr Edwards, was a pilot employed by the defendant airline, Skyways Ltd. As part of a redundancy scheme, the company offered its pilots a payment in addition to their standard contractual redundancy pay. The company stated this payment would be 'ex gratia', a Latin term meaning 'as a favour' or_ 'without admitting legal obligation'_. Mr Edwards accepted this offer, which required him to withdraw his accumulated pension contributions from the company's pension fund. After Mr Edwards acted on this agreement by withdrawing his pension funds, Skyways encountered financial difficulties and refused to make the 'ex gratia' payment. Mr Edwards sued for breach of contract.
Holding
The High Court found in favour of Mr Edwards. It was held that a legally binding agreement had been formed and the company was obliged to make the payment. The key legal principle from the case is that in business and commercial agreements, there is a strong presumption that the parties intend to be legally bound by their promises.
The onus is on the party seeking to deny the agreement's enforceability to prove that there was no such intention. In this instance, the airline failed to discharge this heavy burden. The court reasoned that the use of the term 'ex gratia' was not sufficient on its own to rebut the presumption. The phrase simply indicated that the employer was not admitting to any pre-existing liability to make the payment; it did not mean that the new promise to pay was intended to be unenforceable in a court of law (McKendrick, 2021). Therefore, the promise to pay was part of a binding contract.
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
This case is frequently cited not for its specific facts, but for providing the classic judicial definition of consideration in the law of contract.
Facts
The case concerned a transaction involving the sale of a number of outstanding debts from a firm, Lizardi & Co, to the defendant, Mr Misa. Misa was to pay for the debts via a bill of exchange (similar to a modern cheque) drawn on a bank owned by Currie. After the bill of exchange was issued but before it was cashed, Lizardi & Co got into financial difficulty. Upon discovering this, Misa instructed the bank not to honour the bill of exchange. Currie, the banker, sued Misa for the amount. The legal question was whether Lizardi & Co had provided valid consideration for Misa’s promise to pay contained in the bill of exchange.
Holding
The court held that there was valid consideration. However, the lasting importance of the case comes from the definition of consideration provided by Lush J in the judgment. He stated:
"A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other" (Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, at p 162).
This definition establishes that consideration does not have to be a benefit to the person making the promise (the promisor); it can also be a detriment suffered by the person to whom the promise is made (the promisee). This principle of benefit/detriment remains the foundational concept of consideration in English contract law.
Unidentified Case: "Marfov. Eduseu"
It has not been possible to provide the facts and holding for the case referred to as "Marfov. Eduseu". An extensive search of legal databases does not identify any reported case with this name or a close variation in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. It is possible that the name is a significant typographical error or mis-transcription of another case name. To ensure accuracy and avoid providing speculative information, a summary cannot be provided without a correct case citation.
References
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
McKendrick, E. (2021) Contract Law. 14th edn. Palgrave Macmillan.
