Contract - Consideration

Question 0

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 0

Consideration must move from the promisee.

Only the person providing consideration can enforce the contract.

Question 1

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge

Answer 1

Defined consideration as the price of the promise.

Question 2

Re McArdle

Answer 2

Past consideration is not good consideration.

Question 3

Re Casey’s patents

Answer 3

In comercial settings past consideration is good consideration with prior requests if both parties understood that the act would be paid for or rewarded in some way.

Question 4

Lampleigh v Brathwait

Answer 4

Request must be made prior to the act for the exception to apply

Question 5

Pao On

Answer 5

Requested performance is an exception. To PCNGC.

Question 6

Mountford v Scott

Answer 6

Set the general rule that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

Question 7

Schappell v Nestle

Answer 7

The mere fact that the value is small in economic terms is not fatal.

Question 8

White v Bluett

Answer 8

Moral obligations, natural love and affection are too vague to be held as sufficient consideration.

Question 9

Ward v Byham

Answer 9

Keep a child happy and well looked after was sufficient consideration.

Question 10

De La Bere v Pearson

Answer 10

Courts may invent something of value for the promise exchanged in the interests of justice.

Increasing newspaper circulation.

Question 11

Collins v Godefroy

Answer 11

Set the general rule that the performance of an existing legal duty under general law will not amount to sufficient consideration.

Question 12

Glasbrook Rose

Answer 12

Exceeding an existing legal duty will be sufficient consideration.

Question 13

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 13

Set the general rule that performance of an existing contractual duty cannot be good consideration for a further promise.

Compared to Hartley v Ponsonby where exceding contractual duty was god consideration.

Question 14

Williams v Roffey Rose

Answer 14

For contracts of work or supply of goods and services good consideration can be found if the promisor obtains a practical benefit or oblivates disbenefit and the promise is not given under duress.

Re Selectmove confirmed WvR would not apply to part payments of debts

Question 15

Scotson v Pegg

Answer 15

Where a duty is owed to a third party, consideration in that contract can be consideration for another contract.

Promisee obtains benefit of a direct obligation which he can enforce - Lord Wilberforce

In this case had deprived himself of the choice to breach contract with the first party.

Accepted by Privy Council in The Eurymedon

Question 16

Pinnel’s case

Answer 16

Set general rule that part payment of debt is not enforceable for lack of consideration.

Must be a fixed undisputed amount owed.

Question 17

Foakes v Beer

Answer 17

Approved Pinnel’s case

But recognised commercial practicalities - part prompt payment more beneficial than full delayed one.

Question 18

Vanbergen

Answer 18

Where consideration given at debtor’s request, still not valid consideration

Question 19

Welby v Drake

Answer 19

Payments of debt by third parties are valid consideration even if only part payment. (othereise fraud committed)

Question 20

High Trees

Answer 20

Promissory estoppel key case - Lord Denning

“a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger amount, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding lack of consideration”.

Ignored precedent of Foakes v Beer and followed Hughes.

Question 21

Woodhouse

Answer 21

To use promissory estoppel as a defence

- must be a clear and unequivocal promise so promisor will not insist on his strict legal rights

Question 22

Re Selectmove

Answer 22

Can not rely on promissory estoppel if agreement with someone who has no authority to make it.

Question 23

Hughes

Answer 23

Clearness of promise may be implied by words or conduct if not expressed

Question 24

D&C Builders

Answer 24

For promissory estoppel to be a defence

- must be inequitable for the promisor to renege on his promise.

Question 25

Alan & Co v El Nasr

Answer 25

There is no requirement for detriment to be proved in cases of promissory estoppel as long as there is reliance on the promise and position of the party has changed because of it

Question 26

Combe v Combe

Answer 26

Promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence and not as a cause of action

Question 27

Tool Metal Manufacturing

Answer 27

Promissory estoppel merely suspends rights and they can be resumed by giving reasonable notice.

Unless as in Ajayi v Briscoe, the promisee cannot be restored to his original position then promisor cannot revoke his promise.

Conflict though - if impossible to restore promisee position-

• Denning - can extinguish rights
• other judiciary - cannot

Question 28

Conflict on flawed nature of consideration due to promissory estoppel defence.

Answer 28

Walton Stores v Malver - Australian case says should be decided on “unconscionable conduct”

Prof. Atiyah says should enforce all promises based on reliance.

Future? Reform.