Consideration

Question 1

Consideration

Answer 1

Every valid contract contains consideration
Consideration means that both parties must give something
The case of curie v miss defined consideration as some tight interest profit or benefit which is given to one party

Question 2

Currie v misa

Answer 2

Defined consideration as some right interest profit or benefit which is given to one party

Question 3

Executed consideration

Answer 3

consideration that has been carried out

Question 4

Executory consideration

Answer 4

consideration will be performed in the future

Question 5

consideration AO3

Answer 5

P: Usually when parties agree to give something as the basis of an agreement the courts will agree that an agreement exist and enforce it
DP: this is a positive because the courts are upholding the wishes of both parties this is what they agreed upon the courts will not intervene
WDP: HOWEVER An issue can arise with consideration when a party to contract does because it is is difficult to evidence that this contract was agreed if there is no written confirmation it is word of the person alive not necessarily true witnesses can be used however the courts may not give much weight to there evidence

Question 6

Subheadings for consideration

Answer 6

consideration must be suffice to need not be adequate
Past consideration
Pre existing duty

Question 7

consideration must be suffice to need not be adequate

Answer 7

The court will ensure that both parties have exchanged something of value
The court will not interfere if one party has a made a bad bargain meaning if a party to contract makes a poor choice as long as there is valid consideration there is a contract

Question 8

consideration must be suffice to need not be adequate case

Answer 8

Chapel v nestle
Held: wrappers were valid consideration as they had economic value

Question 9

Past consideration

Answer 9

Past consideration is not valid consideration
Consideration has no value if it has occurred before the agreement is made

Question 10

Past consideration case

Answer 10

Re mcardle
Held:past consideration has no value the money could not be recovered

Question 11

Exceptions under Past consideration

Answer 11

There is an exception to this rule when there is a implied promise to pay (re Casey patent) or when the matter is important (lampleigh vbraithwaite)

Question 12

What is the case for this held: it was implied from when he began the work he would receive some kind of payment this was an exception to the rule of past consideration

Answer 12

Re Casey v patent

Question 13

Re Casey v patent held

Answer 13

It was implied from when he began the work he would receive some kind of payment this was an exception to the rule of past consideration

Question 14

What is the case for this held: as the matter was important it was fair for lampleigh to presume he would be paid this wasn’t past consideration baithwaite had to pay

Answer 14

Lampleigh v braithwaite

Question 15

Lampleigh v braithwaite held

Answer 15

as the matter was important it was fair for lampleigh to presume he would be paid this wasn’t past consideration baithwaite had to pay

Question 16

Past consideration AO3

Answer 16

P: the two cases aren’t different enough to different outcomes the only difference between the two cases is that re mcardle involved family members carrying out work and re Casey involved working for a company the two decisions are an example of judicial creativity as the courts have decided that there is not implied promise to pay when you carry work out for family members
DP: This rule is not well known by lay people and may therefore lead to to confusion among the public
WDP: this means they will rely on legal advise to understand this area of the law and predict the outcome their case
VWDP:this will be costly

Question 17

Past consideration shouldn’t be valid consideration AO3

Answer 17

P: by saying that past consideration is not valid. Consideration restrict the amount of claim that can be made in prevents people from lagging that they are old money for consideration, they offered in the past, therefore restricting frivolous claims
DP: this would offer floodgates to lots of claims. People would be able to bring claims for things they would have expected payment for before.
WDP: furthermore this would overburden the courts, wasting time and court resources. This would have a negative impact on English justice system.

Question 18

Past consideration should be valid consideration AO3

Answer 18

P: it can be argued that past consideration should be consideration, because it allows people who would not carry out work for free the right to make a claim. This allows claimants to access to justice.
DP: if past consideration was never to be considered valid consideration a lot of people would get away with not giving any consideration in return not paying would be unfair and unjust
WDP: this would create a loophole in denying claimants access to justice

Question 19

Performing a pre-existing duty

Answer 19

If there is already a pre existing requirement meant for something to be done this will not be valid consideration

Question 20

Performing a pre-existing duty case

Answer 20

Stilk v myrick
Held: no consideration was provided by the crewmembers only two people got off and there wasn’t a lot, they had to do therefore the work they did amounted to pre-existing duty not sufficient consideration

Question 21

Exceptions to this Performing a pre-existing duty

Answer 21

1 if an extra element is required this is valid consideration
2 the courts have since clarified that if one one party allows the other to avoid a detriment then this is likely they have provided an extra element this would mean that consideration has been provided

Question 22

Case extra element

Answer 22

Hartley v ponsonby
Held: there was an extra amount of work and the reduction in members. This was valid consideration the crewmembers had to be paid extra wages.

Question 23

Performing a pre-existing duty AO3

Answer 23

P: though this facts are similar, they receive two different verdict. This is not fair. An issue with extra elements is that it is open to interpretation what among an extra elimination judge may have a subjective opinion, this would lead to inconsistent decisions.
DP: the sewer conflict with the root of the as the law will not be certain
WDP: hello, these are fair decisions, because in Hartley, there is approximately 50% of the workers left so this will double the work where is in stilk there wasn’t much work for them to do on two people got off the ship.

Question 24

If one party allows the other to avoid a detriment case

Answer 24

Williams v roffey
Held: Williams consideration was completing the work with roffey to avoid the fine roffeys consideration was extra money so that he could avoid a detriment. The consideration in the agreement was valued so the money had to be paid.

Question 25

Williams v roffey AO3

Answer 25

P: this was a fair outcome, because, if roffey did not pay William, William would have had to pay this amount from his own pocket, but roffey still gets to avoid fine.
DP: this was morally and principally, correct it allows the public to maintain faith in the justice system
WDP: it could be argued that William did not provide additional consideration. He only finished the job started there for the law is not very clear it could lead to absurd decisions.

Question 26

Consideration reform

Answer 26

The commission proposed in 1937, that there needed to be reformed in this area, but none of their suggestions were carried out. They suggested that consideration is abandoned completely. It is likely that this wasn’t implemented because it may open the floodgates to the courts being inundated with claims if this aspect of our contract is removed. Nothing has been suggested since perhaps demonstrating that the current law and consideration is satisfactory.