Answer Happy

Question Set 63 Thomas v Thomas (modified) with facts as follows By his will the claimant's husband expressed his intent that his girlfriend should have the use of his house during her life. The defendants initially permitted this party to occupy the house (a) in accordance with the deceased's wished and (b) in return for her undertaking to pay a rent of 10 Bahraini fils per annum. They later claimed that their promise to let her occupy the house was unsupported by consideration and sought to eject her from the premises. [a] Is the promise supported by valid consideration? Answer YES or NO and explain. Can the defendant's legally eject the occupant from the premises? Answer YES or NO and explain. [c] Suppose that there was inserted into the facts recited. above: "(c) in return for her securing the defendants a valuable maintenance contract at Buckingham Palace." How, if at all, would your answer change with respect to questions [a] and above? Explain.