Flashcards in Consideration Deck (23)
Currie v Misa (1975) CA
"Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other" per Lush LJ
Williams v Roffey (1990) CA
Challenges the orthodox approach to consideration.
"(i) if A has entered into a contract with B to do work for, or to supply goods or services to, B in return for payment by B;
(ii) at some stage before A has completely performed his obligations under the contract B has reason to doubt whether A will, or will be able to, complete his side of the bargain; and
(iii) B thereupon promises A an additional payment in return for A's promise to perform his contractual obligations on time; and
(iv) as a result of giving his promise, B obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit; and
(v) B's promise is not given as a result of economic duress of fraud on the part of A; then
(vi) the practical benefit to B is capable of being consideration for B's promise, so that the promise will be legally binding." Glidewell LJ
Russell LJ felt they should look at the intentions of the parties to find consideration where it is not easy to find following the traditional conceptions.
High Trees (1947)
Academic theorists attack the simple "consideration" model.
Chappell & Co v Nestle (1966) HL
"A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like the pepper and will throw away the corn" per Lord Somervell
De La Bere v Pearson (1908)
The defendant sued the newspaper for bad financial advice in advice column. The letter was deemed to be good consideration. This would now be argued in tort.
Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Consideration can move from third parties.
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)
Past consideration cannot amount to good consideration.
Lampleigh v Braithwait (1613)
L had given good consideration as it was done at B's request with an implication that there would be some reasonable payment.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) PC
"An act done before the giving of a promise to make a payment or confer some other benefit can sometimes be consideration for the promise.  The act must have been done at the promisor's request,  the parties must have understood that the act as to be remunerated either by a payment or the conferment of some other benefit, and  payment, or the conferment of a benefit must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance." per Lord Scarman
Mere bargaining power is not enough to show economic duress, they must show:
i) Illegitimate commercial pressure; and
ii) That they subjectively caused the victim's actions; and
iii) That the ICP was such that a reasonable person would have done the same;
and the contract is therefore void. This is not an 100% test.
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
You can't have something for nothing. The claimant was already obliged to be a court witness so there was no good consideration.
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (1925) HL
Miner didn't pay the police, but the promise was enforceable as the police went above and beyond what was expected.
Ward v Byham (1956) CA
Denning LJ considers that it is sufficient to perform an existing duty (controversial).
The Eurymedon (1975) PC
An agreement to do an act which the promisor is under an existing obligation to a third party to do may amount to valid consideration and does in this case.
Stilk v Myrik (1809)
The sailors were already under an obligation so they where bound by there original contract. It is considered a usual emergency of the voyage. Possibly analyse this as dated due to captain's fear of mutiny.
Hartley v Ponsoby (1857)
The captain promised to pay extra money to continue the voyage after 17 sailors deserted at first port. They were able to claim as there was good consideration here.
Barton v Armstrong (1976) PC
Leaving something too long is a bar to rescission as it may be taken as evidence to agree to a contract. Mocatta J named this "constructive advocation" in The Atlantic Baron.
CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher (1994) CA
G sold cigaretts to CTN with credit. G delivered to the wrong address and the cigarettes where stolen. G said that if CTN didn't pay they would withdraw the credit facilities. This was no economic duress as being a monopoly was not enough.
Atlas Express v Kafko (1989)
X carried of goods, in order to distribute Y needed a bid. X offered a cheap bid. X subsequently removed and tried to heighten price. Y agreed (reluctantly). This contract was void for illegitimate commercial pressure.
Evia Luck (1992)
IPC must be a significant cause of the decision to modify the contract.
Pinnel's Case (1602)
"Payment of a lesser sum on the day of satisfaction cannot be any satisfaction for the whole debt" per Lord Blackburn in Foakes v Beer.
Different payment is not the same as lesser payment (horse, hawk or a robe might be more beneficial).
Hirachand Punamchand v Temple (1911) CA
If a third party pays the reduced sum then there is good consideration.
Foakes v Beer (1884) HL
Lord Blackburn is dissatisfied with the rule in Pinnel's case. Early indication that Williams v Roffey is correct as he believe prompt payment may come with some benefit.