A Lvl Contract Law: Consideration

Front 1

Consideration

Back 1

"Badge of enforceability"

~ Ewan McKendrick

Dunlop v Selfridge - "An act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for values is enforceable"

Currie v Misa - "some right, interest, profit of benefit accruing to one part of, some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by one another"

Front 2

Need not benefit the promisor

Back 2

Jones v Padavatton

"The daughter giving up her job did not benefit the mother in anyway, but was still considered sufficient.

Front 3

Must not be past

Back 3

Consideration made before a promise was even made is considered "past"

Roscorla v Thomas:

Promise as to horse's condition was made after sale, thus past.

Re McArdle:

Renovations had already been done before the brothers-in-law promised to pay

Front 4

Must not be past - Exceptions

Back 4

Lampleigh v Brathwait:

If the consideration was done at the promisor's request

Re Casey's Patents:

If there was reasonable contemplation of payment by both parties / business context

Front 5

Consideration - Must be sufficient

Back 5

Need not be of a certain value - as long as deemed sufficient by courts

Thomas v Thomas:

£12 mortgages were accepted

Chappel v Nestle:

Sweet wrappers were sufficient despite having no real value

Front 6

Must be sufficient - Exceptions

Back 6

Consideration must have economic value

White v Bluett:

The son's halt in complaining had no economic value, thus not good cons.

Ward v Byham:

Love and affection - no economic value

Thomas v Thomas:

Husbands wishes had no economic value

Front 7

Promises not the sue

Back 7

Alliance Bank v Broom:

The banks promise not to sue in exchange for satisfied security

Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate:

Promise not to enforce legal claims is consideration if the parties had intended to use them in case of breach.

Combe v Combe:

Promise not to enforce existing claims only consideration if in exchange for another promise.

Front 8

Must move from Promisee to Promisor

Back 8

Price v Easton

Front 9

Performance of Existing Duty

Back 9

GR - It's not consideration if it is only what was obliged to be done or benefit obligated to receive

Front 10

Existing Public Duties

Back 10

Collins v Godefroy (1831)

Public duty owed to disclose evidence

Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan County Council - test now in statute:

s. 25 Police Act 1994

Harris v Sheffield United Football Club

- request of special forces

- disturbance to law and order was defendant's fault

Front 11

Contractual Duty to Promisor

Back 11

Stilk v Myrick c/f Hartley v Ponsonsby

Performance of existing contractual duty is not consideration, unless extra work had been done.

Williams v Roffrey Bros - consideration if it imposes a "practical benefit"

Front 12

Contractual Duty to Pay Debts

Back 12

Part payment of debt is never satisfaction of the full sum

Pinnel's Case: - exceptions

- If was made at a more convenient place

- accompanied by something extra

or

- was made at an earlier time

Approved in Foakes v Beer / Re Selectmove

Front 13

Exceptions to Pinnel's case:

Back 13

Cooper v Parker:

an issue of if there was an actual duty to pay debt

Composition agreements:

Where debts are owed to multiple people, part payments would be equally split based on their debt owed.

Hiranchand Punamchand v Temple:

Payment was made by third-party

Front 14

Contractual Duty to Third Party

Back 14

Further promises to third-parties can be consideration:

Scottson v Pegg: