Consideration, Duress And Promissory Estoppel

Front 1

Rules for consideration

Back 1

- Must not be past
- Must move from the promisee
- Must be sufficient, not adequate.

Front 2

Dunlop v Selfridge

Back 2

Held: Consideration is 'the price for which the promise of another is bought'. Consideration operates like privity, only parties to a contract may sue for the breach.

Front 3

Eastwood v Kenyon

Back 3

Held: Consideration must not be past.

Front 4

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Back 4

Held: Exception to the rule in Eastwood v Kenyon if promise is made:
1. At request of promisor (Lampleigh v Braithwait)
2. When payment was understood to be due (Re Casey's Patents)
3. When the contract was enforceable, the issue notwithstanding.

Front 5

Tweddle v Atkinson

Back 5

Held: Consideration must move from the promisee.

Front 6

Chappell v Nestle

Back 6

Facts: Chocolate bar wrappers were good consideration even if the company just threw them away. They represented increased sales.

Held: Consideration must be sufficient, not adequate.

Front 7

White v Bluett

Back 7

Facts: A son complained continually about his father's distribution of his estate. Finally the father said he would forget the debt if he just stopped complaining.

Held: Promise too vague. Son wasn't giving up a legal right.

Front 8

Performance of existing obligation

Back 8

Harris v Sheffield United - Special police services

Ward v Byham - Parental duty.

Collins v Godefroy - Legal duty to be in court.

Front 9

Stilk v Myrick

Back 9

Held: Performance of existing contractual obligation is not good consideration.

Front 10

Hartley v Ponsonby

Back 10

Held: Performance of an extra contractual obligation is good consideration.

Front 11

Williams v Roffey

Back 11

Held: Performance of existing contractual obligation will amount to good consideration if it amounts to some practical benefit.

Glidewell LJ's Criteria:
1. Promisee has a contract for supply of goods/services.
2. Promisor has a reason to doubt that the promisee will/will be able to complete.
3. Promisor promises extra to complete on time.
4. Promisor obtains 'practical benefit'/obviates disbenefit.
5. Promisor's promise not given as a result of duress.
then...
6. Benefit to promisor is capable of being consideration.

Front 12

Opel v Mitrus

Back 12

Held: Confirms Williams v Roffey.

Front 13

Re Selectmove

Back 13

Held: W+R cannot apply to a claim for a debt owed.

Front 14

Scotson v Pegg

Back 14

Held: Performance of an existing obligation to a third party can be good consideration.

Front 15

Foakes v Beer

Back 15

Held: Payment of a lesser sum does not discharge the obligation to pay the full amount.

Front 16

Pinnel's case

Back 16

- Exception to part payment rule in F v B if:
1. Different 'thing'.
2. Different 'place'.
3. Different 'time'.

Front 17

Welby v Drake

Back 17

Held: If there is payment by a third party, you cannot sue for any remaining balance of the debt.

Front 18

CLP Trust v High Trees House

Back 18

Facts: Promissory Estoppel case giving a principle of justice and equality. Enforcing consistency.

Held: PE Criteria:
1. A clear and unequivocal promise to suspend existing contractual rights. (Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce).

2. An alteration of position in reliance (Ajayi v Briscoe).

3. Reliance need not be detrimental. (The Post Chaser).

4. Inequitable to go back on promise. (The Post Chaser).

5. Must be a shield, not a sword. (Coombe v Coombe).

Front 19

Effects of Promissory Estoppel

Back 19

- Generally suspends rights. These rights will then be resumed on reasonable notice. You can claim for past periodic payments IE: Rent.

Front 20

Barton v Armstrong

Back 20

Held: Duress to the person. The duress need not be 'the' reason but merely 'one' of the reasons, as duress to the person is serious. No need for D to establish they would not have entered into the contract but for the threat.

Front 21

The Siboen and The Sibotre

Back 21

Held: The case for duress to goods in which the doctrine of economic duress was laid down.

Front 22

DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo

Back 22

Facts: There was an illegitimate threat but for a lawful end (insurance purposes) = good faith.

Held: For economic duress to succeed, there must be pressure resulting in:
1. A lack of practical choice for the victim.

2. Which is illegitimate, and

3. Is a significant cause inducing the claimant into the contract.

Front 23

Carillion v Felix

Back 23

Held: No practical alternative but to submit.

Affirmed DSND v Subsea criteria.

Front 24

Illegitimate Pressure

Back 24

Factors Considered:
1. Threats of breach of contract?
2. Pressure applied in good/bad faith?
3. Did the victim protest?
4. Did the victim affirm?

Front 25

CTN v Gallagher

Back 25

Facts: Cigarette suppliers choked a companies line of credit over stolen cigarettes.

Held: Legitimate threat for unlawful end. When the company applied pressure, they believed they were acting in good faith.

Front 26

The Universe Sentinel

Back 26

Facts: Got extra money paid into pension by going on strike.

Held: Legitimate threat for unlawful purpose.

Front 27

Alec Lobb v Total Oil

Back 27

Facts: Got Total Oil to lease his company back to him.

Held: 'Hard Bargain' but no duress.

Front 28

The Atlantic Baron

Back 28

Held: Failure to protest = contract affirmed.

Front 29

Atlas Express

Back 29

Held: Threatened breach of contract for illegitimate purpose. Better to take immediate action protesting against contract to avoid affirmation.

Front 30

Huyton v Peter Cremer

Back 30

Held: Onus on the claimant to prove the duress was a significant cause of them entering into the contract.