Consideration Flashcards
(5 cards)
In Chapell and Co vs Nestle it was held by the Court of Appeal that 6 chocolate bar wrappers in return for a gramophone the Nestle chocolate company was offering as part of a promotion, was valid consideration for Nestle’s offer. Why? What’s the moral of the story?
Even though the chocolate bar wrappers were worthless they were classified as consideration as they acted as a token.
Moral: Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate. It doeSNT HAVE TO BE OF ANY ECONOMIC VALUE
In the case of Re McArdle some children entitled to the house when the mother died. When the mother was alive one of her sons and his wife lived in the house and made improvements. later, the other kids agreed to give her £4888 but they changed their minds and refused to pay when the mother died. This was held in court, why? What’s the moral of the story?
At the time of the promise the improvements had already been done and were therefore past consideration. The promise of £488 was not binding.
Moral: Past consideration is not sufficient consideration
a bad man called Mr.Braithwaite killed a man while in prison and asked Mr.Lampleigh to get a pardon for him. Lampleigh went through a lot of trouble to get the pardon. afterwards, Braithwaite promised to pay Lampleigh £100 for his work. When Braithwaite was released he refused to pay the £100. Why was this held in court? What’s the moral of the story?
: the promise to pay the £100 was implied at Braithwaites initial request for help so the promise was binding.
Moral: If a request is made for a service, the request may imply a promise to pay for it.
In the case of Collins vs Godefroy, Godefroy promised Collins money if he would act as a witness at a trial. Later, Collins received a subpoena to attend. This was held, Why? What’s the moral of the story?
Collins wasn’t entitled to the money as he was legally bound to attend anyway.
Moral: Doing something you had to do anyway, because of the law, can’t be consideration
In the case Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
Glasbrook Bros asked and promised to pay for a special police guard on the mine.
Later they refused to pay arguing that the police had done their public duty which they are obliged to do anyway. This was held, why? What’s the moral of the story?
The police had done more than their general duty.
The extra services given were consideration for the promise to pay.
Moral: If some extra service is given sufficient consideration is needed
