Lord Wilberforce`s statements in this case are very instructive – when he looked at the issue of reflection, he said that the rules of offer and acceptance, etc., often do not correspond to modern transactions. It is preferable to see the exemption as it is intended for the entire transport, whether it is carried out by the carrier, the representative or an independent contractor. P made a deal to marry Ellen. His uncle, who congratulated him, said, “I will pay you 150 a year for my life, until you reach 600 pa as a lawyer.” When the uncle died, the complainant tried to recover the arrears. The personal representatives argued that the applicant is contractually obliged to marry, therefore no consideration. The court found that the marriage was a matter of interest to the uncle and that he benefited from his arrest, so there was reflection. According to Currie/Misa, there is consideration for a particular commitment if the beneficiary of the promise has a right, interest, profits or benefits (or will be acquired) in the event of leniency, loss, loss, loss or liability given (or incurred) to the promise. Leniency is only possible if a law is renounced.    The promise not to sell here as part of the main agreement was made at D`s request. The parties were in the domain of the claretists that the claim must be compensated and that such a guarantee was legally enforceable. The modern declaration of the law is in Casey`s patents.
Can a TP benefit from a contract in which it does not participate? The general rule is that only one party can obtain rights under this contract – contractual protection. The argument put forward here is that there is a unilateral contract between the Stevedore and the owner. “I offer an exception to all those who are willing to unload the goods.” It may not be much like reward cases, but the PC said it was as it was to see. Very artificial. So why was the court so interested in allowing the Stevedores to gain the advantage of the contract? A book in itself may be only of some value, but if you have all the other books in this series, other than this one, you may be willing to pay more. If there is no unfair advantage, then the courts will not check the ADEQUACY of the counterparty. There may be extreme cases where an agreement is an agreement so patently wrong that the courts will conclude that there has indeed been an unfair advantage. You can find an example in CBA v Amadio (1983). The complainant was a sailor on a boat sailing from Great Britain to Bombay and earned 3 a month. During the voyage, 17 crew members refused to work and were sent to prison.
The defendant agreed in writing to pay plaintiff 40 to sail to Bombay with a crew of 19 crew members. They arrived in Bombay six weeks later. The additional payment was refused. During the trial, it was found that the accused was a volunteer in the agreement. The additional crew could not be found at a reasonable price. It should have been a crew of 36. The court found that it was unreasonable for the vessel to continue to operate at only 19 years of age. As it was dangerous for the vessel to continue with so few hands, the complainant should not have done the work. Therefore, the applicant was free to make the remaining trip or not. The agreement was voluntary on both sides. They were free to enter into a new contract.
The complainants may have taken advantage of this position to make a difficult case, but it was not forced. HEROS that they considered, in Satterthwaite`s case, that a Himalayan clause could extend the defence of a boy`s licence to third parties, as if they were contracting parties. Their masters would not favour subtle distinctions in order to reduce the applicability of the general principle in the light of established business practices.