dc.contributor.author |
Roberts, Marcus |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2019-05-27T02:54:47Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2019-03-01 |
en |
dc.identifier.citation |
Canadian Business Law Journal 61:392-410 01 Mar 2019 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
0319-3322 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/46563 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
In early 2018 I wrote in the pages of this journal that the “case law in Canada relating to variation contracts is currently in a state of some confusion”. In particular, I was referring to the confusion surrounding whether or not consideration was required to support a variation agreement. Such confusion in the case law had not always been the case. The traditional, orthodox position in Canada and in England had been clear and internally consistent, even if it was disliked by many commentators. This orthodoxy was often known as the “pre-existing duty rule” and was based upon two premises. First, agreements to vary an existing contract are also contracts and, as such, these variations need to be supported consideration flowing from both sides to be enforceable at law. Second, the consideration provided by each party cannot merely be the re-promising or the performance of what was already promised in the original contract. This is because such a re-promise or performance would provide nothing more than what the other party was already owed and would be functionally the same as doing nothing. Instead, the consideration has to be something extra to that already promised in the original contract. Bringing these two premises together, a wholly one-sided variation to an existing contract, benefitting solely one party, was not legally enforceable since the benefitted party had provided no consideration in return for the variation in their favour. |
en |
dc.publisher |
Canada Law Book Inc |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Canadian Business Law Journal |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://home.heinonline.org/titles/Law-Journal-Library/Canadian-Business-Law-Journal/ |
en |
dc.title |
Rosas v Toca – Asses and ‘Incremental Changes’ to Consideration |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
pubs.begin-page |
392 |
en |
pubs.volume |
61 |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: Canada Law Book Inc |
en |
pubs.end-page |
410 |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
767770 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Law |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Faculty Administration Law |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2019-04-04 |
en |
pubs.online-publication-date |
2019-03-01 |
en |