Law of contract (26)

Question 1

The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

Answer 1

Chappell v Nestle Co. (1960)
The three chocolate bar wrappers although seeming insufficient , were sufficient to be consideration

Question 2

The consideration must not be past

Answer 2

Re McArdle (1951)
Repairs and improvements to an inherited house were past and so were not consideration. The new owners didnt ask for the renovations

Question 3

The consideration must not be past (exception)

Answer 3

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Here although braithwait didnt originally mention a price at the time of the request, it was clear both parties expected a payment and the later promise of 100 was evidence of this

Question 4

The consideration must move from the promisee

Answer 4

Tweedle v Attkinson (1861)
As the groom wasnt part of the contract, he was unable to sue the estate

Question 5

An existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration

Answer 5

Collins v Godefroy (1831)
Defendant offered the policeman money to ensure he attended court , it was however already the policemans duty and so there was no consideration

Question 6

Exception of an existing PUBLIC duty doesnt amount to a consideration

Answer 6

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925)
During a strike a pit owner asked for extra police and even promised extra payment however after he refused to pay claiming the police were doing their mere duty- there was consideration as the police were doing more than their duty

Question 7

Existing contractual duty doesnt amount to consideration

Answer 7

Stilk v Myrick (1809)
9 remaining crew members wer eoffered an extra salary if they sailed safely home, it was ruled that this was their duty and so no extra consideration was given

Question 8

exception of existing CONTRACTUAL duty cannot amount to consideration

Answer 8

the greater reduction in numbers from 36 to 19 meant that the voyage was more dangerous and so crew members were doing something in excess of existing duties

Question 9

Pinnels case

Answer 9

Payment of a smaller sum than the debt on the date due can never relieve the reliability of the debtor to pay the whole debt unless-
something additional is provided
the payment is made before the due date
The payment is made in a different form

Question 10

Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration

Answer 10

Foakes v Beer (1884)
Mrs beer demanded interest on all the payments dr foakes was paying in installments(this interest is always payable on judgement debt) but he refused and the court ruled in mrs beers judgement following the pinnels case

Question 11

The part payment of a debt doesnt amount to consideration where the creditor is giving into pressure from the debtor to accept less

Answer 11

D and C builders v Rees
Builders were owed 482 but after waiting for a long time and going through financial troubles, they reluctantly accepted 300, the subsequently sued for the balance and were successful as there was no valid consideration on their part

Question 12

The doctrine of promissionary estoppel

Answer 12

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd(1947)
Claimants agreed to accept half rent when ww2 started and the defendants couldnt afford the lease, however by 1945 the claimants wanted full rent again. They were estopped from going back on their original promise and could only take full rent from new leasers

Question 13

Promissionary estoppel must be used as defence and not a course of action

Answer 13

Combe v Combe (1951)
a wife separated from her man and sued on a promise he made as she relied on it
she had provided no consideration for her husbands promise and so couldnt rely on this doctrine. It also cant be used as a sword, only a shield

Question 14

performance of an existing duty as seen in williams v roffey bros

Answer 14

if extra consideration provides a practical benefit like working faster, then it can make performing an existing duty a valid consideration. Since here, the carpenter completed his work due to extra consideration, even though it was his duty already, it was valid since roffey bros avoided delays (practical benefit)

Question 15

criticisms of the pinnels case

Answer 15

Creates a strict approach to contract law favouring creditors as they can still demand the full amount unless fresh consideration is provided
Is widely considered unfair as it ignores practical realities where debtors are in a tight spot
Led to the creation of promissory estoppel

Question 16

Definition of a valuable consideration

Answer 16

Currie v misa (1875)
The exchange of value be it benefits to the promisor or detriment to the promisee
This case also clarified that simply paying a pre existing debt doesn’t constitute valid consideration