Essay Question: “Although the legal rules governing consideration may appear unduly complex and technical, in practice the requirement for consideration in contracts rarely causes problems or gives rise to any injustice. Calls for reform of the doctrine of consideration, or even its abolition, are therefore misplaced. Discuss

Essay Question: “Although the legal rules governing consideration may appear unduly complex and technical, in practice the requirement for consideration in contracts rarely causes problems or gives rise to any injustice. Calls for reform of the doctrine of consideration, or even its abolition, are therefore misplaced. Discuss” 

One of the key elements in contract law is consideration. This is a doctrine in law where parties should give something valuable for a binding agreement. While the rules governing legal consideration are often thought to be too complex, very few real-life applications bring about complications or injustices. This study delves into the complexities of, analyzing its pragmatic implications and assessing objective grounds for proposed calls for reformation or annulment. 

In English contract law, consideration is a key element that manifests as such an exchange between the two or more parties. It is this concept that captures the meaning of contractual obligation and in so doing provides a baseline for enforceable agreements. Although perception rules of consideration seem very complicated, they are absolutely necessary to ensure fairness and voluntariness of contracts that serve as protection for agreements unbalanced or prejudicial. The requirement of reciprocity in the contract law is clear evidence English as sharing benefits through promises exchanged bilaterally. In Currie v Misa which develops the concept of consideration, it is pronounced that this encompasses rights, interests, profits, benefits forbearances detriments losses or liabilities. This validates the bargain theory of contract in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd, wherein promises given for valuable consideration are enforceable. 

With regard to the pragmatic use of consideration, parties entering into contracts are usually aware of this rule and arrange their contractual terms in accordance with it. As explained by Lord Ackner in Walford v Miles, an agreement without consideration is unenforceable and creates uncertainty; hence, parties must be aware of this rule. Most transactions that occur on the daily basis in exchange of goods, services or promises flow through quite smoothly without complex legal entanglements. This relative absence of consideration action disputes indicates that the doctrine often accomplishes its objectives without too many challenges. Mitchell’s analysis reveals the tendency of common law towards flexibility by mentioning preservation to reasonableness and practicing urgent meaning of contract. Different legal developments, which include a tendency to deviate from strict doctrines like consideration and such as the privity rule in Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 show that they are moving with the modern complexities. Georgia Antonopoulou argues that the critical question in assessing considerations and intention to form legal relations revolves around whether or not such consideration aligns with criteria for criterion of recognition and enforceability Agreement. Lord Clarke gives an additional focus on the impartial assessment of communicated words or behavior to determine if parties had intent in creating legally binding relations. 

Law is still evolving based on the emerging needs. Therefore, the call for reforms in the doctrine of consideration is not a bad idea; however, it should be approached carefully. Indeed, although this doctrine has shown effectiveness in contemporary society’s environment, there are some form of rigidness it its application as argued by reformers in Mitchell’s presentation. The reformers in Mitchell’s view propose a structure that is adaptable enough to allow modern contracts to meet necessary changes; however, any change must observe fairness and free will. Mitchell’s consideration analysis shows, the concept has taken different forms throughout history and facilitates a clear understanding of contracts under broader interpretations as advocated. For example, one such can be illustrated in the Williams v Roffey Bros (1990), which mentioned departure as a controversial leave has applied practical benefits and only discards traditional views. This reveals the continuation deliberating on flexibility being a component of consideration doctrine. 

The doctrine of consideration has major impact in contract law; hence, the idea of abolishing or making changes to it should be done with caution. For instance, the doctrine plays a large part for maintaining stability while also seeking protection from being exploited. The reforms which were proposed by the Law Reform Committee in 1937 had been explained to ensure issues of justice, complexity and commercial propensities are addressed. The courts have also been reluctant to recognize the practical benefit of this doctrine as revealed in the case of Williams v Roffey Bros but reforms are still necessary. 

Indeed, legal rules governing consideration may seem complex and technical in practice. Analysis of various coursework’s and reading materials support this statement that rules on consideration do now cause injustices following various reforms that were done before. However, the issue on whether reforms are misplaced in inconclusive.  The law is not static as various changes may be necessary over time to address emerging societal needs. Therefore, changes may be necessary but must be conducted with caution to avoid any ripple effects that may emerge.