Offer, acceptance, consideration etc Flashcards

Question

Consideration: Definition: Currie v Misa

Answer 1

Each party must incur a detriment, or alternatively, confer a benefit upon the other party

Answer 2

The amount/adequacy of the consideration is irrelevant

Answer 3

Consideration will not be passed, and will be good consideration, if there has been a previous general request to undertake the consideration before it takes place, as long as there is an expectation of payment and a specific promise of payment later on

Answer 4

An act done before a promise was made was good consideration for that promise if it was done at the promisor’s request and the parties understood the act was to be paid for at a later date, and the payment or benefit would have been enforceable had it been promised in advance.

Answer 5

A vague or subjective promise (e.g. to stop complaining) is not valid consideration. 💡 Son’s promise not to complain was held to have no legal value.

Answer 6

Only a party who provides consideration can enforce the contract. 💡 Groom couldn't enforce a promise made between his and his wife’s fathers.

Answer 7

Exceeding a public duty can amount to valid consideration. 💡 Police provided extra protection at landowner’s request—this was sufficient consideration.

Answer 8

Fulfilling existing contractual duties is not good consideration. 💡 Sailors promised extra pay for doing what they were already contractually bound to do.

Answer 9

Providing a practical benefit may amount to valid consideration. 💡 Promise to pay extra to ensure timely completion was upheld.

Answer 10

Part-payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forgo the rest. 💡 Even where creditor agreed to no interest, full payment wasn’t made.

Answer 11

Economic duress invalidates consent; no consideration for coerced agreement. 💡 Small business signed contract under pressure from a carrier.

Answer 12

Foakes v Beer principle reaffirmed—part payment is not consideration. 💡 Company’s proposal to pay tax in instalments lacked fresh consideration.

Answer 13

MWB v Rock Advertising [CA & SC] Court of Appeal: practical benefit could be good consideration.

Answer 14

Promise to perform a contractual duty owed to a third party can be valid consideration. 💡 Nephew’s marriage, already contractually promised, still benefited the promisor uncle.

Answer 15

Forbearing a legal claim can be consideration if claim is made in good faith. 💡 Dropping a possible debt claim was sufficient to enforce the promise.

Answer 16

- As a shield, not a sword: Use it when being sued - Only after common law principles can't help, and you cannot figure out whether there is consideration or not

Answer 17

****A promise intended to be binding, and relied on, can prevent enforcement of strict rights. 💡 Rent reduction during wartime was upheld even though unsupported by consideration.

Answer 18

If one party leads another to believe they can delay fulfilling their obligations, they cannot later insist on strict compliance during that period. 💡 Landlord couldn’t evict for breach during negotiation period.

Answer 19

Estoppel unavailable where there is economic pressure or unfair conduct. 💡 Builders coerced into accepting less payment were not estopped from claiming the balance.

Answer 20

Promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action; it is a shield, not a sword. 💡 Wife couldn’t use estoppel to enforce promise of maintenance.

Answer 21

A third party can enforce a contract if it benefits them and they are expressly identified. 💡 Statutory reform to privity of contract.

Answer 22

Agreements between spouses are presumed not to be legally binding. 💡 Husband’s promise to send money during separation wasn’t enforceable.

Answer 23

Social/family agreements lack intent to create legal relations unless clearly shown. 💡 Mother promised to support daughter in exchange for study—held not binding.

Answer 24

Informal agreements made in social contexts may lack contractual intent. 💡 Pub discussion promising £15m if share price rose—no intent found.

Answer 25

Parties can exclude legal enforceability through clear wording. 💡 Honour clause meant the agreement was not legally binding.

Answer 26

A comfort letter does not necessarily create binding intent. 💡 Parent company’s “policy” not to let subsidiary default didn’t bind it.

Answer 27

Courts can imply missing terms if intention to contract is clear. 💡 Agent entitled to commission even though timing of payment wasn't agreed.

Answer 28

Previous dealings can clarify vague or future terms. 💡 Ambiguous future agreement upheld by construing in commercial context.

Answer 29

A meaningless or vague clause can be severed if the rest of the contract is workable. 💡 “Usual conditions” was meaningless, but didn’t void the deal.

Answer 30

Agreements to agree are not enforceable. 💡 No binding contract where price was “to be agreed.”

Answer 31

Agreement to agree may be upheld if parties are already performing and intent is clear. 💡 Courts upheld agreement due to ongoing dealings.

Answer 32

Agreement to negotiate in good faith is unenforceable. 💡 Too uncertain and inconsistent with adversarial bargaining.

Answer 33

Short-term lockout agreements can be enforceable if time-bound and clear. 💡 Seller’s promise not to negotiate with third party for two weeks upheld.

Answer 34

Parties may be bound even if they anticipate a future formal document. 💡 Agreement was binding even without final signature.

Offer, acceptance, consideration etc Flashcards

(58 cards)