Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:44

From: Kelvin Low

Subject: Contract, Consideration and Tort Duties

I can't cite any authorities off the top of my head and am not in the office so here goes ...

I think the flaw in the argument lies in the assumption that there is no consideration for the case of the dentists because the particular promised obligation is already owed. In fact, both dentists do provide consideration as both promise to extract your teeth, something they were not obliged to perform under the law. Perhaps more to the point, the more important question is whether you have provided consideration and clearly you have as you promised to pay £12,000 to Fred. 

According to Treitel at least, the true question is whether a promise(s) is/are supported by consideration, not whether the contract is supported by consideration. So in your first example, whilst I may not sue you for the £100 because I have not provided any consideration by promising not to defame you, it is arguable that you have provided consideration for my promise because you have promised to pay me £100. Which raises the interesting question whether the answer to the question whether there is a contract is always a yes and no response. In the context of mistake (of the unilateral variety where one party mistakes the terms of the offer of the other party and accepts, and the other knows of the mistake), I think the answer must be yes and no depending on whose point of view one takes. I suppose that may well be true also of your first example.

Cheers,
Kelvin Low

The University of Hong Kong

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Jason Neyers wrote:

On behalf of Jane Stapleton:

  

Dear Colleagues,

I throw myself at your feet in the hope that you will be able to show me a flaw in the following reasoning and where I might find authority on the point.

As I understand orthodox contract doctrine in England and the Commonwealth [I leave Scotland aside], a promise to perform a duty that would be owed anyway is not good consideration. So, for example, if I promise to pay you £100 in return for your promise not to defame me in your up-coming law review article, you cannot sue me in contract for the £100 when you publish your article without any defamatory mention of me. In exchange for my promise of the £100, you gave me nothing more than I would have had in any case: in publishing your article to a third party you were under an obligation not to defame me, an obligation imposed by the law of torts.

The scenario in which I am interested is where you do defame me: clearly I can sue you in the tort of defamation. But I do not think I can sue you in contract because there was not a binding contract between us.

Next, I presume obligations are severable: I promise my dentist Polly £10,000 pounds in return for her promise to extract my upper wisdom teeth on Tuesday 8th April 2008. This is an enforceable exchange of contractual promises.

I also promise my dentist Fred £12,000 pounds in return for his promise to extract my lower wisdom teeth on Wednesday 9th April 2008.

Now, it is obvious that whenever any dentist, even those acting pro bono, extracts teeth that dentist owes a duty of care to the patient: this obligation need not be bought, it is imposed by the law of torts for free. [Indeed, as Cardozo noted, it is even the case that “the surgeon who operates without pay, is liable though his negligence is the omission to sterilize his instruments”.]

On Wednesday 9th April 2008 Fred extracts my lower wisdom teeth carelessly and I suffer a personal injury. I know I can sue Fred in the tort of negligence for compensation for that injury. But I do not see on what basis I could also sue Fred in contract for compensation for my personal injury: Fred was under the obligation of care to me in any case.

This suggests that in relation to most duties of care owed by defendants in relation to their own misfeasance [I leave aside areas such as obligations to affirmatively control the conduct of third parties] the obligation is not concurrent in tort and contract, but arises solely in the law of torts. Or, much more likely, the problem is that I do not understand the rule in contract about when and why a promise to perform an already owed duty does not constitute the consideration needed to support the contractual enforceability of a promise given in exchange.

If I have simply dug myself a hole, please help me out of it!

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>