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;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Consideration must move from the promisee |
So the person who wishes to enforce the promise must have provided consideration. If I say I'll give you a tenner if you give my mate a phone, and you don't, he can't sue you, but I can. Tweddle v Atkinson. |
|
|
Consideration must not be past |
Re McArdle. Carrying out work on a house.
Exception: If the fact of past service raises implication at the time that it was to be paid for. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long. Following criteria must be met:
-Done at promisor's request -Parties must have understood act was to be renumerated -Payment must have been legally enforceable had it been promised |
|
|
Consideration need not be adequate |
Courts are not there to judge adequacy of payment. Won't try to measure comparative value. Eg Haigh v Brooks
|
|
|
Consideration must be sufficient |
Doesn't have to reflect market value of goods, but must have some value.(economic) O'Neill v Murphy, prayers considered not sufficient.
Chapell v Nestle, chocolate bar wrappers case. Wrappers considered to have sufficient as they represented a sale for the company.
Forebearance or compromise can be sufficient. Hamer v Sidway, rich uncle case. |
|
|
Performance of existing duty. |
Not sufficient. Collins v Godefroy, jury case.
Harris v Sheffield United, extra police protection considered sufficient because they had foregone discretion to provide a standing guard. |
|
|
Part payment of a debt |
Pinnel's case.
I owe you 500. We agree that I pay you 300 if you cancel the rest. You can say yes, take 300, sue me for 200.
Exceptions: -Introduction of new element. Corporation of Drogheda case. I can instead offer a book worth 300 just fine. -3rd party. Welby v Drake.
|
