• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/4

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

4 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Define Consideration

Consideration can be defined as the price paid for a persons promise. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd 1915. and Currie v Misa 1875.



Executed Conisderation - Performance of the consideration at the time of making the agreement.



Executory Consideration - a promise to do something in the future,

What are the four rules governing Consideration ?

Consideration must move from the promisee - Only the person who provided consideration can sue on a contract - Tweddle v Atkinson 1861 and Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co 1915.



Consideration must not be past - An act of consideration completed prior to an agreement then not legally enforceable. Roscorla v Thomas 1842 , Re McArdle 1951 and N V A Management Ltd v Obafemi MAritus 2010.



Consideration need not be adequete - Consideration does not have to be of equal or market value. Chappell and Co v Nestle Co Ltd 1960.



Consideration must be sufficient - Must be recognised as having some value by law. Thomas v Thomas 1841. Even if it is very little, or no economic value. Ward v Byham 1956 and GNR v Witham 1873.



Cannot do what you already bound to under public duty. - Collins v Godefroy 1831 unless something extra is done 0 Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council 1925, Harris v Sheffield United Football Club 1988 and Reading Festival Ltd v West Yorkshire Police Authority 2006.



Same principals apply to those already bound by contract. Stilk v Myrick 1809. Only where the party does more than contractually obliged in exchange for new consideration can he enforce the new promise. Hartley v Ponsonby 1857. Williams v Roffey Bros 1990.



If the contract is with a third party performance of the duty amounts to valid consideration, Scotson v Pegg 1861.



Part payment of an exsisting debt is not valid consideration. Pinnels Case 1602, Foakes v Beer 194 , D and C Builders v Rees 1966 and Re Selectmove Ltd 1994.



If some additional benfit is given then part payment may be valid consideraiton, Pineels Case 1602.

What is the exception to consideration must not be past ?

The doctine of implied assumpsit - Where that is an implication that payment is expected, a later agreement can be enforced. Such a getting a taxi. Lampleigh v Braithwait 1615, Re Casey's Patents 1892 , Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980.



What are rebuttable presumptions ?

Rebuttable presumptions are used to determine whether a party had an intention to be legally bound when making a contract. The intent to create legal relations is the third core element to a contract.



Social and Domestic agreements - The presumption is made that there is no intention. Balfour v Balfour 1919 and Jones v Padavatton 1969.



Rebutted in - Merritt v Merritt 1970 where the relationship broke down. Parker v Clark 1960 where one part is at a disadvantage. Simpkins v Pays 1955 where payment of money took place between the parties to the agreement.



Commercial and Business agreements - The presumption is that there is intention. Edmonds v Lawson 2000.



Rebutted if - It amounts to a mere puff.


The agreement states is is binding in honor only, contains an honour clause or honourable pledge claus, Jones v Vernons Pools 1938 ans Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros 1924.



The apparenty agreement is a letter of comfort.