Consideration

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Launston
  • Created on: 14-05-14 10:01
View mindmap
  • Consideration
    • Definition
      • Currie v Misa - Some benefit to one party and a detriment to the other
        • Frederick Pollock - an act or forebearance...being the price for which the promise is bought
      • Must be exchange, needed to form AND vary, can be promises
      • Function
        • Bade of enforceability
          • Distinguishes bargains from gratuitous promises
    • Rules
      • Sufficient but need not be adequate
        • Minimal consideration sufficient - Nestle v Chappell
          • Must have some commercial value - White v Bluett
            • Promising to refrain from suing can be consideration
      • Must not be past
        • Roscorla v Thomas
          • Lampleigh v Braithwaite - services performed at request, implied payment
            • Pao On - parties understood act was to be renumerated
      • Must move from promisee
        • Tweddle v Atkinson
    • Performance of existing duties
      • Existing legal duty - not good consideration
        • Collins v Godefroy
          • BUT Ward v Byham - going beyond duty
      • Owed to 3rd party
        • Can use consideration to enforce promises by two different parties
          • NZ Shipping v Satterthwaite
      • Owed to promisor
        • Asking for more
          • General rule: contractual duty not consideration - Stilk v Myrick
            • Unless more is done - The Atlantic Baron
              • Williams v Roffey - no fraud or duress AND benefit, can be enforced
                • Stilk v Myrick refined - court adapted law
        • Wanting to pay less
          • Pinnel's Case - lesser sum in satisfaction of greater sum not good consideration
            • Foakes v Beer
              • Re Selectmove - Williams v Roffey does not apply to part payment because Foakes is authority
                • Criticism: accepting less on earlier date is always beneficial
    • Promissory Estoppel
      • Attempt to mitigate harsh effects of rules
      • Originated in Hughes v Met Railway
      • High Trees case
        • Clear and unequivocal promise
          • Express, implied or by conduct
        • Reliance by promisee
        • Promisee must act equitably
          • D & C Builders v Rees
            • Collier - voluntary acceptance makes it automatically inequitable to go back on promise
      • Limitations
        • Suspension of rights
          • High Trees - went back to paying full rent
            • Tungsten - reasonable notice
        • Shield not sword
          • Cannot be used to form contract
            • Combe v Combe

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »