Talk:Consideration under English law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Contract.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

This article was listed for cleanup by Wikipedia. I have undertaken a major cleanup of this article but it probably could do with more tweaking. At least it is beginning to look as if it might be a Wikipedia article. Since I have had enough of this project, I invite others to wade in and improve it further. MPLX/MH 06:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

  • Do Not Merge I would go as far as to say that there should be separate articles for each jurisdiction when a certain area of law is being covered. To cover all the nuances in a doctrine between jurisdictions would make an individual article too big and unwieldy.Thehappyhobo (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge Consideration at UK and Australian Law, although somewhat similar to American Law, is distinguished and has subtle nuances within it that can serve to confuse the lay reader. Separating the two will be a more prudent measure.
  • Do Not Merge Whilst similar there are succinct differences and different legal jurisdictions should not be clubbed together. This should go for other legal topics within Wikipedia if it is to become a genuinely useful resource.
  • To merge these two articles would be daft, many people use this as a source for academic work, to merge the American and British versions together would create confusion. There are often quite distinct differences. I second that.
  • Please don't merge these articles. It's very important that people understand the difference between the laws of the jurisdictions, and I feel that merging English and US legal doctrines will lead to nothing but confusion.
  • I agree that this should be merged with 'Consideration.'
  • Do Not Merge As a matter of law, US and English law are, while similar, obviously and necessarily seperate. Because of this, I think that they should be addressed seperately. Cpaliga 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge English law and US law as regards consideration have very different development and the merging of the two articles can make lay reader confusing (as the principles of consideration itself are confusing enought!) --Sunnyhsli 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge. In my judgement, this would be dangerous. Consideration under English Law and US Law are conceptually distinct and governed by their own cases. It does not serve any use to 'merge' the two together, for then the analysis would, in my judgement, be confused and muddled when clear analysis demands separations and distinctions to be made, so the two different conceptions can be understood better in their own terms. EM (2005). A small and brief subsection labelled "Comparison With Other Jurisdictions" might be more appropriate.
  • Do Not Merge. Many students will be confused if you merge this already complicated subject. :)
  • Do Not Merge. Absolutely not. Merging these articles would be a big mistake, and will only lead to confusion.
  • Do Not Merge. This is a complex concept; merging the articles would create unneccessary confusion for the layreader and students of Law. Iolar Iontach 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge Quite clearly different jurisdictions therefore need separate pages!
  • Do Not Merge Ascertaining the state of the law is complicated enough, without merging different jurisdictions.
  • Do Not Merge For God's sake, do not merge. If you want to see what happens when you write about a certain notion in the different jurisdictions in the same article, look here: Negligence. Piotrnikitin (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another merger proposal

See talk:consideration for this. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the stub on the Pre Existing Duty Rule and the article on Consideration under American Law should be merged with this article. The article on pre-existing duty is purported to be about American law, but gives very little added value to what is said here. In my view it would be sufficient just to state in this article "Similar rules are recognised in American law" and make an appropriate reference to the USC. The article on Consideration under American law again provides little information that demonstrates that there are any differences with English law, or indeed any divergencies between the laws of the various states.

This article should be renamed "Consideration (Common law)" and expanded to include some cases from Commonwealth and US jurisdictions.

I think that the two should be merged to give diverse views of the doctrine under both constitutions. It is always good to acquire and expand on one's knowledge. That can only be done when we have explored each situation in its individual settings and compare and contrast. However, I think that each should be clearly labeled to avoid confusion as to which structure each constitution follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.231.110 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They should NOT be merged! Many students use wiki for their assignments, and if you merge these sections it would make their lives that much more complicated. When they read and incorporate information into their assignments, they would no longer have the peace of mind that it was completely applicable to their jurisdiction. For this reason many might stop using wiki altogether in favour of legal journals and so forth. Those that continue to use wiki then would be required to nit-pick every detail to ensure it related to their jurisdictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.143.45 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a first year law student, who used this article to obtain a general overview of consideration, I am telling you that merging these articles together would be insane and incredibly unhelpful to readers. 138.253.201.185 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Do not merge- Currently we have two useful articles rather than one useless one. Can we keep it that way please Francium12 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge. Don't understand the opposition - we have one article on Contract law - why do we have two separate articles on one area of contract law? Good editing should be able to accommodate the differences and the similarities. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. The article on Contract law would benefit from being separated by jurisdiction too. For someone trying to work out the state of English contract law, the article is unclear and potentially misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.139.11 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - re Contract law - the Contract law article should be general and comparative then there should be articles for Contract (England and Wales), Contract (France) etc with those titles for easy "piping". The title of this article should be Consideration (England and Wales) so that I can type [[consideration (England and Wales)|]].Cutler (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Merge we need to be able to distinguish between the two merging them will only lead to confusion for specifically requiring information one area of law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.190.164 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE- this is a good article do not change it to make it difficult! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.28 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Do not merge - this is one of the few decent articles on English law and deserves better than to be lumped together to form a generic mass which is not going to be helpful to anyone except those who want to reduce the number of articles with "consideration" in their title. Please create a separate page for Commonwealth cases, they have no place here. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)