Intention&consideration

Front 1

Ausralian Wollen Mills v Commonwealth 1954

Back 1

Dixon J – intention is “Voluntary assumption of a legally enforceable duty.” Government subsidy scheme not intended to be a contract.

Front 2

Balfour v Balfour 1919

Back 2

Old presumption that agreements made between family members are not intended to create legal rights.

Front 3

Edwards v Skyways

Back 3

Ex gratia payments does not imply agreement of no legal effect. Intent in a commercial context is a matter of evidence, but rare to have finding of no intention to contract.

Front 4

Rose & Frank v Compton 1925

Back 4

Gentleman’s agreements or honourable pledges show intent not to have a formal or legal agreement.

Front 5

Dunlop v Selfridge [1915]

Back 5

An act or 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 value is enforceable

Front 6

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

Back 6

Distinguish Motive from legal consideration, natural love or affection is not consideration.

Front 7

Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth (1954)*

Back 7

Cth Subsidy program, establishes that an act must be done in consideration for the promise, act was not a bargain between the parties, but an administrative arrangement

Front 8

Beaton v McDivitt (1987)*

Back 8

Consideration must be in exchange for a promise,  High court accepted the bargain doctrine of consideration in Australian Wollen Mills no ratio though

Front 9

Pao On v Lau Yiu [1980]

Back 9

Good consideration if:
1. Act at promisor’s request
2. Parties understood at start that act was to be remunerated
3. Payment legally enforceable
Economic duress requires illegitimate pressure, ‘coercion of will vitiating consent

Front 10

Chappell v Nestle [1960]

Back 10

Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate, some commercial value i.e peppercorn rent

Front 11

Williams v Roffey [1991]

Back 11

Can be good consideration ‘in asking for more’ case when there is no fraud or economic duress if promisor obtained a practical benefit by paying more

Front 12

Musumeci v Winadell (1994)

Back 12

Supermarket case, rent reduction enforceable, forbearance can be good consideration

Front 13

Foakes v Beer (1884)

Back 13

General rule is that part payment of a debt or promise thereof is not good consideration