• 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

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




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;

21 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Bolton v Madden

In a bilateral contract, consideration must flow from the promisee; however this can be conferred upon a 3rd Party if so agreed

Currie v Misa

Valuable consideration may consist either a right/benefit accruing to one party or some detriment/loss undertaken by the other

White v Bluett

'refraining from complaining' was not valid consideration to discharge him from a promissory note for money

Hamer v Sidway (USA)

Promise to stop drinking and smocking was tangible enough to be consideration through forbearance

Wade v Simeon

If you know your claim is bad, forbearing your right to bring legal action is not consideration because you're not giving anything up

Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering

It is not consideration to refrain from a course of conduct which one never intended to pursue

Cook v White

An honest belief in a strong claim can be consideration if you forbear that right

Roscorla v Thomas

The promise of the horse being 'sound' came after the transaction so cannot be valid consideration

Re McArdle

Past consideration is not valid consideration; she already paid for the work before the promise of money so couldn't enforce it

Lampeigh v Braithwaite

Exception to the rule for past consideration; if the act is one you'd expect to be paid for then there may be an implied promise to be paid after the event

Pao On v Lau Yui Long

Past consideration is only valid if:

a) promisor requested it

b) it was understood that it was to be remunerated

Thomas v Thomas

Consideration need only be sufficient, but not adequate

This is to encourage market individualism and to respect freedom of contract

Chappell v Nestle

Courts do not question whether value is adequate or consider fairness so long as there is no duress

Stilk v Myrick

Promise to divide deserted wages was no consideration because sailors were only doing what they were already contractually obliged to do; there was no consideration

Hartley v Ponsonby

Offering sailors more money to stay was consideration because so many deserted that they were having to do more than what they were originally contracted to do

NZ Shipping v Satterthwaite

stevedores provided consideration for the promise by unloading the drill with care; this was additional consideration on top of their contractual liability

Collins v Godefrey

A promise to do something you are legally bound to do is not consideration

Shadwell v Shadwell

A pre-existing duty with a third party can amount to consideration because it involves the promisee taking on a risk of breaching 2 contracts

Foakes v Beer

Part payment of debt is not consideraiton; despite the factual benefit to the promisor

Williams v Roffey Brothers

Since the doctrine of economic duress, consideration can be found where there is a factual benefit to the promisor, or an avoidance of a desbenefit

Combe v Combe

The wife had given no consideration because her husband had not asked her to refrain from taking legal action; 'a gratuitous promise cannot be enforced unless it is supported by a deed'