Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:15:23 -0400

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: The MAHKUTAI

Dear Colleagues:

Just reading The MAHKUTAI case. In it, Lord Goff describes the Eurymedon as being explainable on the grounds of a bilateral contract without consideration. Can anyone explain to me how this is possible because I don't understand his explanation? I thought that it was a unilateral contract, promise for act: If you unload for me, I will promise to limit your liability in tort.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>