1-2 Cases

Front 1

Definition of consideration

Back 1

Currie v Misa (1875)

- A valuable consideration is a right, interest, profit or benefit for one party, or a forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility for the other

Front 2

“Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient”

Back 2

Chappell v Nestle (1960)

- A party can stipulate what he chooses. A peppercorn is does not stop being good consideration if we find out the promisee does not like pepper and would throw it away

Front 3

Promise not to moan not good consideration

Back 3

White v Bluett (1853)

- Father promised to not enforce debt in exchange for promise to stop moaning about distribution of property. Promise not to moan not good consideration

Front 4

Significant forbearance held to be good consideration

Back 4

Hamer v Sidway (1891)

- Nephew promised to give up alcohol, smoking, gambling and swearing until 21 in exchange for $5000. Held this forbearance was good consideration

Front 5

Past consideration (basic rule)

Back 5

Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

- Past consideration is no consideration. Assured horse was fine after purchase

Front 6

Exceptions to basic rule on past consideration

Back 6

Exceptions (all must apply)

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615)
- Act done at promisor’s request; Seeking of Royal pardon, later promised £100

Re Casey’s Patents
- Parties understand from outset that reward is expected

The benefit would have been enforceable had it been promised in advance

Front 7

Performance of existing obligations not usually good consideration

Back 7

Stilk v Myrick
- Sailors being paid more to do same job
- Performance of existing obligations not usually good consideration

Front 8

Partial payment of debt not consideration for promise to forego remainder of debt (obiter)

Back 8

Pinnel’s Case (1602)
- Partial payment of debt not consideration for promise to forego remainder of debt (obiter)

Front 9

Authority that partial payment of debt not consideration for promise to forego remainder of debt

Back 9

Foakes v Beer (1884)
- Confirms Pinnel’s Case in the house of lords

Exception is where part payment comes early, or in a different form more suitable to the creditor

Front 10

Promise to carry out existing legal obligation is not good consideration

Back 10

Collins v Godefroy
- Promise to carry out existing duty by law not good consideration (testify as witness)

Front 11

Is promise to perform public duty good consideration?

Back 11

Ward v Byham (1956)
- Mother enforces promise to pay allowance for keeping child “well and happy”
- Two judges held it was good consideration because “well and happy” exceeds basic obligation

Front 12

(Denning) A promise to perform an existing duty is sufficient consideration… so long as not contrary to public policy

Back 12

Williams v Williams (1957)
- (Denning) A promise to perform an existing duty is sufficient consideration… so long as not contrary to public policy

Front 13

Exceeding legal duty is good consideration

Back 13

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (1925)
- Exceeding legal duty is consideration; Police requested to provide extra services

Front 14

Exisitng contractual duty to third party is good consideration for another party

Back 14

Scotson v Pegg (1861)

- Existing contractual obligation sufficient consideration for contract with another party

Front 15

Existing duty to same party not good consideration

Back 15

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

- Fulfilment of existing promise to counter party is not good consideration; promise to split wages of two deserters

Front 16

Exceeding exisiting obligation to same party is usually good consideration

Back 16

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

- Exceed existing obligation is usually good consideration; this time half the ship deserted

Front 17

Performing existing obligations is consideration for extra promise if promisor obtains benefit or avoids disbenefit; promise must not be under duress

Back 17

Williams v Roffey Bros. (1991)

- Performing existing obligations is consideration for extra promise if promisor obtains benefit or avoids disbenefit; promise must not be under duress

Front 18

Case founding promissory estoppel

Back 18

Central London Properties v High Trees House (1947)

- Doctrine of promissory Estoppel derives from this case, where rent was halved during the war

Obiter, claim for full war years would have failed. Claim for last two quarters of 1945 succeeded

Front 19

Case used by Denning to create promissory estoppel

Back 19

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
- Equitable doctrine where negotiating parties with reason to think strict right will be waived cannot have it later enforced if inequitable to do so

Front 20

Promisee must have acted on the promise, not necessarily to their detriment

Back 20

WJ Alan v El Nasr (1972)

- Promisee must have acted on promise, not necessarily to their detriment

Front 21

Must be inequitable for promisor to go back on promise to waive rights

Back 21

D&C Builders v Rees (1966)

- Must be inequitable for promisor to go back on promise to waive rights

Front 22

Notice of resumption pre-waiving need not be given, depends on whether dependent on specific event or reasonable notice

Back 22

Tool Metal Electric v Tungsten Electric (1955)

- Notice of resumption pre-waiving need not be given, depends on whether dependent on specific event or reasonable notice

Front 23

Right can be extinguished completely if promise cannot return to original position

Back 23

Ajayi v Briscoe (1964)

- Right can be extinguished completely if promise cannot return to original position

Front 24

Promissory estoppel is not a cause of action

Back 24

Combe v Combe (1951)

- Promissory estoppel is not a cause of action