View mindmap
    • must not be too vague
      • WHITE V BLUETT - a promise to stop complaining is too vague / intangible to be good consideration
    • performing an existing duty
      • duty under a contract
      • under law of the land
    • must be sufficient, need not be adequate
      • THOMAS V THOMAS - paying less than the market rent is sufficient
      • BAINBRIDGE V FIRMSTONE - being entitled to have boilers returned in good condition / weighing boilers was good consideration
      • CHAPPELL V NESTLE - chocolate bar wrappers good consideration even though no intrinsic value
    • part payment of a debt
    • must move from the promisee
      • TWEDDLE V ATKINSON - a third party who does not provide consideration cannot enforce an agreement
      • Contract (rights of third parties) Act (1999) - TP providing no consideration can enforce if contract intended to benefit him
    • forbearance to sue
      • HAIGH V BROOKES - giving up the right to sue is good consideration if claim had some chance of success and person intended to enforce it
    • Definition
      • DUNLOP V SELFRIDGE - any act or forbearance
      • CURRIE V MISA - benefit / detriment
    • past consideration
      • ROSCORLA V THOMAS - consideration cannot be past - it must be exchanged for the other person's promise
        • RE MCARDLE - as per roscorla
    • exception to rule of past consideration
      • LAMPLEIGH - where payment is implied all along, past consideration is valid, as payment always in minds of parties and later promise just sets level of payment
        • RE CASEY - as per Lampleigh


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract law resources »