Consideration Flashcards
(13 cards)
Currie v Misa (1875)
Consideration is a benefit to the person receiving it or a detriment to the person giving it.
E.G I sell my mobile phone to you for £100. I gain 100 but lose my phone. You lose £100 but gain my phone.
Central London Property Trust ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947)
CLP agreed to reduce the rent by half during the war years. Although unsupported by consideration, promissory estoppel prevented CLP from going back on their promise.
Foakes v Beer (1884)
F owed B £2090, B agreed that if the debt was paid by the agreed date, no interest was needed. She later changed her mind and demanded interest on the amount. The debt usually attracts interest, and therefore F was liable to pay interest to B.
Part payment is not good consideration
Re McArdle (1951)
A promise to contribute towards the repairs of a house in consideration of the repair works made after the house had been repaired. Therefore, the work was completed before the promise was made.
Consideration must not be past.
Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)
B asked L to get him a Kings Pardon. I worked hard and got the person. After B promised to pay him 109 which he never did. It was held the service was requested by B that it can be said both parties contemplated a payment.
The court may imply an understanding at the time of the request that B was being paid for doing the task. There was an implied promise to pay.
Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)
Where both parties derive a mutual benefit, then such a promise is enforceable. Practical benefit is valid consideration. RB contracted with Shepard’s Bush Housing Association to refurbish a flat. RB subcontracted the carpentry work for W £20,000 and promised to pay an addition 575 to make sure they finish.
It was held practical benefit = avoid penalty + continued work.
Chappell v Nestle (1960)
Nestle promised a gramophone record in return for three chocolate wrappers. It was held wrestlers were good consideration in the eyes of the law as they have value.
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
17 of 36 deserted, held remaining crew did more than obliged. Held: remaining crew did more than they were obliged to.
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
2 of 11 sailors deserted and the masters agreed to share wages with the rest of the crew if the shop was brought back safely.
It was held there was no consideration as they agreed to do what they were already obliged to do.
Thomas v Thomas
It just gave some economic value l. It need not be adequate but must be sufficient.
D & C Builders v Rees (1966)
R offered D & C £500 or nothing. The court rejected promissory estoppel. R used financial difficulties of D&C to accept a lower deal.
PE is only available where inequitable for the promiser to go back on the promise.
Coombe v Coombe (1951)
Promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield not a sword. There must also be proof of reliance.
Tweedle v Atkinson (1861)
A party cannot she or be sued under a contract unless he or she has provided consideration.
