Consideration Flashcards Preview

Contract Law > Consideration > Flashcards

Flashcards in Consideration Deck (20):

Currie v Misa definition of Consideration:

Some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given or undertaken by another.


Dunlop v Selfridge definition of Consideration:

The price for which the promise of the other (party) is bought.


3 Rules of Consideration:

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


Consideration must not be past:

A benefit given in the past is not consideration for a present promise,

Relevant Case: Re McArdle


Criteria for exception to the rule that consideration must not be past:

- Act must be done at promisor's request.
- Both parties acknowledge that the act would be remunerated by payment or other benefit.
- Payment must be legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.


Case that contradicts the rule that consideration must not be past:

Lampliegh v Braithwaite


Consideration must move from the promisee:

Third parties are prohibited from suing for the carrying out of promises made by the parties to the contract.

Tweddle v Atkinson


Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate:

As long as consideration has some value, the courts will not concern themselves with adequacy.

Thomas v Thomas


What about the performance of an existing duty?

Renders consideration insufficient.


Consideration must be:


White v Bluett


Executory Consideration:

Promises are exchanged for future acts


Executed Consideration:

An act is performed to fulfill a promise to another



Person to whom the promise is made.



Person to who is making the promise.


What is the equitable remedy of Promissory Estoppel?

Essentially stops parties from attempting to not enforce their contractual duties. It is a shield not a sword.

Central London Property v High Trees House Ltd


Lampliegh v Braithwaite

The defendant had killed a man and was due to be hung for murder. He promised another £100 in exchange for securing a pardon.

It was held:

Even though it would constitute past consideration, it was preceded by a request from the defendant, making it valid.


White v Bluett

Promising not to complain is not consideration and ultimately intangible.


Re McArdle

McArdle carried out various repairs on a house. After she completed the work, her siblings promised to pay her but never did.

It was held:

Promise to make payment was invalid as it came after the consideration had been performed.


Thomas v Thomas

After he died, Mr Thomas gave his wife the house for £1 per year.

It was held:

The £1 rent was good consideration. Even though it was not economically adequate, it was sufficient.


Tweddle v Atkinson

Father of bride and Father of the groom agreed to pay couple a sum of money. Both died before that could happen. The groom made a claim.

It was held:

Groom could not make a claim as he was not party to the arrangement.