| dbo:abstract
|
- Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 is an English contract law case heard in the King's Bench on the subject of consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been distinguished from Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, which suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic duress. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 7502 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:citations
|
- [1809] EWHC KB J58, 170 ER 1168 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:judges
| |
| dbp:keywords
| |
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:transcripts
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dct:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 is an English contract law case heard in the King's Bench on the subject of consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been distinguished from Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, which suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic duress. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |