Final Case Ratios

Question 1

Governors of Dalhousie College v Boutilier’s Estate

Answer 1

Nothing is consideration unless it is bargained for and unless the parties intended it to be

Question 2

Eastwood v Kenyon

Answer 2

• Past consideration is no consideration
• Moral consideration is no consideration
• A promise is not sufficient to form a contract because there is no consideration

Question 3

Lampleigh v Braithwait

Answer 3

• Restitution principle: a promise made after the performance can be enforced only if it was understood by the parties that there would have been some sort of reward prior to performance
• Can be express or implied

Question 4

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 4

• Pre-existing duty is not consideration

* New consideration is required to amend an existing contract

Question 5

Gilbert Steel v University Construction

Answer 5

2 ways to amend a contract:
1.Variation- need a contract to vary a contract (mini contract w/ new consideration)
2. Rescission + new contract w/ amendments
♣ Call the original contract off (agreement to rescind is itself a contract)
♣ Because after rescission there is no contract you don’t run into the pre-existing duty

Question 6

Williams v Roffey Bros

Answer 6

Pre-existing duty to promisor can be consideration if there is a practical benefit to the promisor (does’t have to be detriment) so long as no economic duress

Question 7

Greater Fredericton Airport Authority v Nav Canada

Answer 7

• A post contractual modification, not supported by consideration, may be enforceable, provided it was not obtained under economic duress
• Must be a meeting of the minds

Question 8

Foakes v Beer

Answer 8

Partial payment of a debt is not consideration and it cannot be satisfaction for the full amount

Question 9

Re Selectmove Ltd

Answer 9

Practical consideration in payment of a lesser sum, is not consideration

Question 10

Foot v Rawlings

Answer 10

• Post dated cheques are peppercorn
• Post dated cheques were bargained for detriment which is new consideration for a new agreement
• Accepting terms that benefit the creditor for convenience can amount to consideration, “new consideration”

Question 11

B.(D.C.) v Arkin

Answer 11

• Promises to forebear asserting what one believes in good faith is a legal right is valid consideration
• Even if I was mistaken as to my legal right the courts will accept it as consideration

Question 12

Central London Property v High Trees House

Answer 12

-Promise without consideration may be enforceable, if there is an existing legal relationship between the parties supported by consideration
•Have to have sufficient and reasonable reliance on the promise for it to be enforceable
•The promise has to be: intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and was acted on

Question 13

Combe v Combe

Answer 13

•Promissory estopel can only be used as a shield and not a sword
•Cannot be used as a cause of action only a defense
-Cannot waive statutory right as consideration

Question 14

D & C Builders v Rees

Answer 14

• Promissory estoppel is not possible when the promise was not bargained voluntarily, if the promise lacked “true accord”
• One of the parties cannot be forced into the agreement
• Estoppel= equity=discretionary (must have clean hands)

Question 15

Waltons Stores v Maher

Answer 15

•Estoppel can sometimes be used as a sword
•Promise has to be relied on + something more
•Plaintiff acted to their detriment on the basis of an assumption induced by the defendant’s conduct
-Can be enforced when contract not already in place

Question 16

John Burrows Ltd v Subsurface Surveys Ltd

Answer 16

• Conduct is not sufficient intention

* For estoppel to be available it must be a waiver intended to alter the relationship

Question 17

International Knitwear Architects v Carob Investments

Answer 17

When notice is given to revoke the promissory estopel moving forward you have to act as if the promise didn’t exist but the promising party is estopped from claiming the amount in the past when estoppel was in play

Question 18

W.J. Alan & Co v El Nasr Export

Answer 18

• Promissory estoppel requires reliance but not necessarily detrimental reliance
• Rely on the actions of the other party and alter their position as a result

Question 19

The Post Chaser

Answer 19

• You need to show detrimental reliance, empty reliance is not enough
• This rejects the decision in W.J. Alan & Co v. El Nasr Export

Question 20

Royal Bank v Kiska

Answer 20

• Text inferring that a seal is intended is not sufficient to constitute that seal is in place
• Has to be your seal, cannot just be a seal thrust upon you
• Formality of the seal provides the specific evidentiary and cautionary purposes

Question 21

Deglman v Guaranty Trust

Answer 21

•Part performance has to relate to THE specific contract not A contract
•Need 2 things in order to satisfy the part performance doctrine:
1. Performance referable unequivocally to the existence of a contract concerning the,
2. Land in question
•Ex: passers by think you are doing the act to get the reward of the contract

Question 22

Lensen v Lensen

Answer 22

• Extension of Degleman
• Judges can say that part performance can refer to SOME contract
• As long as there is A contract on the table you can point to the fact that there is evidence of part performance

Question 23

Provender v Wood

Answer 23

Third party beneficiary can sue

Question 24

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 24

• Rejects Provender v Wood
• Reciprocity argument: if we allow C to enforce a contract to which they are not a party we would create a situation where C could sue but could not be sued
• There was no consideration from the son in this agreement—natural love and affection is not consideration in the eyes of the law
• No stranger to a contract can sue even if its made to their benefit

Question 25

Dunlop Puematic Tyre v Selfridges

Answer 25

• If A and B had a contract and A was acting on behalf of C it is always a CB contract—agency argument
• No consideration so no agency
• Cannot sue for a contract you are not part of

Question 26

London Drugs v Keuhne & Negel Internation

Answer 26

Three factors:
•Employees can use it defensively but not offensively
•AB contract has to intend expressly or implicitly to confer the benefit of the contract on C
•What C was doing had to be at work doing something to help their employer carry out the contract in question

Question 27

Law Reform Act (NB)

Answer 27

• Can use ratio in London Drugs offensively, not just employees everyone
• Says that unless it promises otherwise the third party beneficiary you can sue on the AB contract to enforce that for your benefit