Formation And Enforcement

Front 1

Jones v Padavatton

Back 1

Presumption against ITCLR in parent-child rs

Front 2

Balfour v Balfour

Back 2

Presumption against ITCLR in spousal rs. Unless not living in amity.

Front 3

Radmacher v Granatino

Back 3

Pre-nups are enforceable.

Front 4

Hadley v Kemp

De Cruz v Guangzhou

Back 4

No ITCLR in informal/social rs

No ITCLR when doing favor as friend, not even if got secret profit

Front 5

Edwards v Skyways

Rose v JR Crompton

Back 5

Presumption that ITCLR present in commercial setting, even if promise described as 'ex gratia'.

Rebuttable if expressed to be without ITCLR (e.g. letters of comfort)

Front 6

Kleinwort v MM

Back 6

Letters of comfort are merely statements of present fact, not contractual promise as to future conduct

Front 7

Combe v Combe

Alliance Bank v Broom

Back 7

Benefit conferred in reliance on, rather than in return for, a promise is not good consideration.

But benefit conferred at implied request can be good consideration.

Front 8

In re McArdle

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Sim Tony v Lim Ah Gee

Back 8

Past consideration is not good consideration.

Implied assumpsit

- See did act at Sor's request

- Clearly understood at time of request that See would be rewarded

- Would have been enforceable

Front 9

Currie v Misa

Back 9

Consideration must be valuable. It is either right, interest, profit or benefit to one party, or forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility by another.

Front 10

Chappell v Nestle

Lipkin v Karpnale

Back 10

Consideration can be valid despite being trivial (i.e. does not have to be adequate).

Policy considerations may affect whether a thing is deemed valid C.

Front 11

Ward v Byham

Back 11

Intangible benefit may be sufficient consideration.

Front 12

Hamer v Sidway

Back 12

Abstinence from legal rights may be sufficient consideration

Front 13

White v Bluett

Back 13

Abstinence from what one has no right to do is not sufficient consideration (morally obliged to do it anyway) (smells of policy consideration)

Front 14

Glasbrook v Glamorgan

Back 14

Promise to perform existing public duty is not good consideration, unless the performance exceeds existing duty.

Front 15

Shadwell v Shadwell

Back 15

Promise to perform existing contractual duty owed to a 3P is still good consideration

Front 16

Williams v Roffey Bros

Sea-land v Cheong

Back 16

Promise to perform existing contractual duty owed to other party is sufficient consideration for more payment if other party will receive practical benefit from it.

But C invalid if practical benefit was not requested.

Front 17

Foakes v Beer

In re Selectmove

Back 17

Promise of part performance is insufficient C for other party's full payment.

Practical benefit is not valid C here.

Front 18

Central London v High Trees

Back 18

Requirements for PE:

Promise intended to create/alter legal relations

See acts in reliance on it

Inequitable for Sor to resile from it

Effects of PE:

Suspensory

Restricted to relieving promises

Front 19

Woodhouse v Nigerian

Hughes v Metropolitan

Back 19

PE requires a clear & unequivocal indication of the Sor's intention not to insist on his strict legal rights against See.

This promise can be implied from the circumstances.

Front 20

The Post Chaser

Back 20

PE requirement of reliance is fulfilled when See commits to course of action he would not otherwise have adopted, but for the promise.

Even despite reliance, it might not be inequitable for the Sor to resile the promise, for e.g. where See could be restored to original position.

Front 21

Abdul Jalil v A Formation

Back 21

For PE, reliance need not be detrimental as long as it would be inequitable to allow Sor to resile on the promise.

Front 22

Lam Chi Kin v Deutsche Bank

Back 22

Detriment includes expenditure of time/money, incurrence of liability, change of position and deprivation of a benefit.

Front 23

D&C Builders v Rees

Back 23

No inequity in resiling promise where the See had extracted the promise by threatening non-payment in bad faith.

Front 24

Hughes v Metropolitan

Ajayi v Briscoe

Back 24

Effect of PE is suspensory and Sor's rights are resurrected by giving R notice.

But it's extinctive if See cannot resume original position.

Front 25

Combe v Combe

Long Foo Yit v Mobil Oil

Back 25

PE cannot act as cause of action, only acts defensively.

Front 26

Crabb v Arun

Walton's Stores v Maher

Baird v M&S

Back 26

PE has been allowed as cause of action due to need for redress against unconscionable conduct.

This has since been rejected.