Consideration

Question 1

Consideration requirements

Answer 1

• Pinnel’s case = part payment does not satisfy the whole debt, but a useful gift as well can
• Thomas v Thomas = consideration must be of value
• Chappell & Co v Nestle = consideration that is of value to the parties is valid, even if worthless to everyone else
• Wade v Simeon = you have to be in good faith and have the right to sue for the threat to sue to be good consideration [test = honest belief + good faith]
• Eastwood v Kenyon = consideration, offer, and acceptance have to occur at a similar point
  [vs. Jones v Padavatton = no intention to create legal relations]

Question 2

Benefits

Answer 2

• White v Bluett = intangible benefits with no value are not consideration [payment to not complain case]
• Hamer v Sidway = consideration can be for doing something valuable [don’t gamble, drink, swear, the nephew is giving up his right to do something vs. No right to complain in White v Bluett]
• Pitt v PHH Asset Management = can be the promise not to do something – in this case it was the promise not to form a contract in the sale of a house

Question 3

Implied assumpsits + promises

Answer 3

Lamleigh v Brathwait = implied assumpsits are valid for a contract, even after the promise is made after the action = King’s pardon case
[Pao On v Lau Yiu Long = applied the doctrine of past consideration as in Lamleigh v Brathwait]
vs. No implied assumpsit grated in Re McArdle which was a promise to repay after work so prepared to do it for free anyway
+ Combe v Combe = no consideration for a promise – promisery estoppel is a defence not an attack

Question 4

Pre-existing duty

Answer 4

• Shadwell v Shadwell = pre-existing duty but still loss as he could have changed his circumstances by marrying someone else
• Collins v Godfroy = pre-existing legal duty as subpoenaed, so compensation not required
• Police have a public duty but are asked to do more, so go beyond their pre-existing duty, so there is consideration due to this extra-performance = Glasbrook v Glamorgan [miners’ strike case] + Reading Festival v West Yorkshire Police Authority

Question 5

Doing extra

Answer 5

• Stilk v Myrick = claim failed due to not doing anything extra and another report claimed it failed on account of public policy due to duress
• Vs. Hartley v Ponsonby = they were doing something extra – sailing a dangerous ship that they were not bound by to sail under their existing contract
• Williams v Roffey Brothers = practical benefit derived so there was consideration
• Attrill v Dresden Kleinwort = there was consideration as it was vitally important to the bank to retain employees during the crash, so the bankers got their bonus

Question 6

History of consideration to demonstrate the undertainty of the law

Answer 6

• Stilk v Myrick = under duress – under pressure to return the ship, so would have agreed to anything
• Vs. Hartrley v Ponsby = conditions changed – extra consideration for extra work, so went beyond original terms of what they were contractually obliged to do, so extra money required
• Williams v Rothey Brothers = extra consideration through practical benefit
• In Adam Opel v Mitras Donalson criticises Williams v Rothey Brothers
• South Carribean = says that they cannot overrule Glidewell in Williams v Rothey Brothers
• WRN v Ayris = goes around Williams v Rothey Brothers by ignoring it
• Attril = great benefit
• Selectmove = criticises Williams v Rothey Brothers as it does not consider Foakes v Beer
• Rock Advertising v MWB Business Exchange Centres = Lord Sumption highlights the disagreement in the case law
  = ends in uncertainty