promisee - Synonyms for promisee | Synonyms Of promisee

Examples of "promisee"
An option contract can provide some security to the promisee in the above scenario. Essentially, once a promisee begins performance, an option contract is implicitly created between the promisor and the promisee. The promisor impliedly promises "not" to revoke the offer and the promisee impliedly promises to furnish complete performance, but as the name suggests, the promisee still retains the "option" of not completing performance. The consideration for this option contract is discussed in comment d of the above cited section. Basically, the consideration is provided by the promisee's beginning of performance.
If the third party brings an action, and the promisee does so afterwards then the promisee cannot claim any damages. This is because the Law Commission felt that if the third party claimed compensation for the breach, the promisee would have no interest in the dispute any more. This fails to take into account situations where the promisee has suffered personal loss from the breach of contract. If the promisee brings an action first then the third party is prohibited from doing so, unless the promisee's action fails, in which case the third party is free to pursue his own claim.
The promisee can also sue the promisor for failing to pay the third party beneficiary. Under the common law, such suits were barred, but courts have since determined that the promisee can sue for specific performance of the contract, provided that the beneficiary has not already sued the promisor. Furthermore, if the promisee was in debt to a creditor beneficiary, and the failure of the promisor to perform caused the promisee to be held liable for that debt, the promisee can sue to recover the amount of the debt.
4. Promisor and promisee 2(c) :- When the proposal is accepted, the person making the proposal is called as promisor and the person accepting the proposal is called as promisee.
Section 4 preserves the right of the promisee to enforce any term of the contract. This allows the promisee to sue for any losses to themselves, but not for losses of the third party.
The option contract provides an important role in unilateral contracts. In unilateral contracts, the promisor seeks acceptance by performance from the promisee. In this scenario, the classical contract view was that a contract is not formed until the performance that the promisor seeks is "completely" performed. This is because the consideration for the contract was the performance of the promisee. Once the promisee performed completely, consideration is satisfied and a contract is formed and only the promisor is bound to his promise.
Once the beneficiary's rights have vested, the original parties to the contract are both bound to perform the contract. Any efforts by the promisor or the promisee to rescind or modify the contract at that point are void. Indeed, if the promisee changed his mind and offered to pay the promisor money not to perform, the third party could sue the promisee for tortious interference with the third party's contract rights.
A problem arises with unilateral contracts because of the late formation of the contract. With classical unilateral contracts, a promisor can revoke his offer for the contract at any point prior to the promisee's complete performance. So, if a promisee provides 99% of the performance sought, the promisor could then revoke without any remedy for the promisee. The promisor has maximum protection and the promisee has maximum risk in this scenario.
Although the topic is not discussed in the Law Commission's report or the bill itself, it is generally considered that the third party has no rights against the promisee, regardless of his rights against the promisor. Andrew Burrows, who prepared the Law Commission's report, said that the third party does not acquire rights against the promisee, something Guenter Treitel has also suggested. A different stance is taken in Scots law, where a promisee has a duty to the third party to ensure performance of the contract.
Because the promisor can assert any defenses that could be asserted against the promisee, the beneficiary also becomes liable for counterclaims on the contract that the promisor could establish against the promisee. This liability can never exceed the amount that the promisor owes under the contract. In other words, if the promisor is owed money by the promisee, any award to the third party for the promisor's failure to perform can be reduced by the amount thus owed. If the promisor is owed more than the value of the contract, the beneficiary's recovery will be reduced to nothing (but the third party can never be made to assume an actual debt).
While the law on this subject varies, there is nonetheless a commonly accepted construction of third-party rights in the laws of most countries. A right of action arises only when it appears the object of the contract was to benefit the third party's interests and the third-party beneficiary has either relied on or accepted the benefit. A promisee nominates a third party usually for one of two reasons—either the promisee owes something to the third party and the performance of this new obligation will discharge it, or the promisee will somehow get a material benefit by giving something to the third party.
Section 5 helps protect the promisor from double liability (having to pay two sets of damages for the same breach, one to the third party and one to the promisee) if the promisor breaches the contract. It does so in a very limited way, though – the promisor is only protected if he has first paid damages to the promisee, and the third party's claim comes after that. In addition the Act only limits damages paid in this situation, it does not eliminate them. If the promisee brings an action against the promisor and wins, any damages paid to the third party in a subsequent action must take the previous damages paid to the promisee into account.
It can take the form of money, physical objects, services, promised actions, abstinence from a future action, and much more. Consideration to create a legally enforceable contract entails a bargained for, legal detriment incurred by the promisee OR a legal benefit to the promisor. Under the notion of "pre-existing duties", if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.
Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typical examples of things of value are acts, forbearances, and/or promises to do so. The latter referring to those things that a party has a legal privilege to do in the first place. So, promising to refrain from committing a tort or crime is not a thing of value for purposes of consideration. This is known as the bargain theory of consideration and requires that the promises to exchange the things be reciprocally induced. This is especially important for the discussion of past consideration, below.
A "creditor beneficiary" can sue both the promisor and the promisee, but the beneficiary cannot "recover" against both. If the suit is successful against one party to the contract, the other party will be dismissed. Because the creditor beneficiary is receiving the performance of the promisor in order to fulfill the promisee's debt, the failure of the promisor to perform means that the beneficiary can still sue the promisee to recover the "preexisting debt". The failure of performance simply means that the debt has never been paid.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal and upheld the judge's award of £2500 for loss of amenity. Lord Mustill said ‘the law must cater for those occasions where the value of the promise to the promisee exceeds the financial enhancement of his position which full performance will secure.’ So ‘consumer surplus’ was recognised in an award for breach of contract. To award them nothing would be to say the promise was illusory, and that was unsatisfactory. But correcting was too expensive, and too much for the loss of Mr Forsyth. It would be contrary to ‘common sense’ and unreasonable. So we must look to ‘the loss truly suffered by the promisee’.
A promise is enforceable if it is supported by consideration, that is, where consideration has moved from the promisee. For example, in the case of "Tweddle v Atkinson", John Tweddle promised William Guy that he would pay a sum of money to the child of William Guy, and likewise William Guy promised John Tweddle that he would pay a sum of money to the child of John Tweddle, upon the marriage of the two children to each other. However, William Guy failed to pay the son of John Tweddle, who then sued his executors for the amount promised. It was held that the son could not enforce the promise made to his father, as he himself had not actually given consideration for it - it was his father who had done so instead. The son didn't receive any consideration, so he cannot enforce the promise. This particular rule of consideration forms the basis of the doctrine of privity of a contract, that is, only a party to a contract is permitted to sue upon that contract's terms. (Note that the doctrine of privity has been somewhat altered by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.) Therefore, consideration from the promisee was indulgent of the claim. Although consideration must move from the promisee, it does not necessarily have to move to the promisor. The promisee may provide consideration to a third party, if this is agreed at the time the parties contracted.
5. Consideration 2(d):- When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing or promises to do or to abstain from doing something such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
The Act allows the promisor to list additional defences that can be used against the third party in the contract, which can be used to get around the Law Commission's decision not to give the promisor equal defences against both the third party and promisee by simply listing those additional defences the promisor would like access to.
Generally, past consideration is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Past consideration is consideration that has already flowed from the promisee to the promisor. That is, the promisee's act or forbearance predates the promisor's promise. Past consideration therefore cannot be used as a basis when claiming damages.