Promisor must recieve something which the law recognizes as benefit, something of value.
1 of 13
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd
Sir Frederick Pollock says that consideration can be 'an act..of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise is bought and the promise is thus enforceable.'
2 of 13
Requirements for consideration
1. Consideration must not be an act in the past 2. Consideration must move from the promisee 3. Consideration does not need to be adequate but sufficient 4. Performance of pre-existing duty is not consideration
3 of 13
Eastwood v Kenyon / Re McArdle
Consideration must not be past because past acts were done graciously
4 of 13
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Exceptions were past consideration is valid: The parties must have understood that the act was to be remunerated by payment or some other benefit in the future
5 of 13
Price v Easton
A can only enforce a promise made to him by B if A provided consideration for that promise
6 of 13
Bainbridge v Firmstone
Consideration does not need to be adequate, only exception is fraud and duress.
7 of 13
Mountford v Scott
"Mass of English authority to the effect that anything of value however small the value is sufficient consideration to support a contract at law.'
8 of 13
White v Bluett
Consideration must be of some economic value
9 of 13
Stilk v Myrick
Pre-existing duty to the promisor cannot count as consideration because you already had to do it.
10 of 13
Collins v Godefroy
Pre-existing legal and moral duty does not count as consideration.
11 of 13
Shadwell v Shadwell
Performance of a contractual duty owed to a third party can constitute as consideration
12 of 13
Lord Scarman, Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
The promise of a pre-existing contractual obligation to a third party can be valid consideration
13 of 13
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Sir Frederick Pollock says that consideration can be 'an act..of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise is bought and the promise is thus enforceable.'
Back
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd
Card 3
Front
1. Consideration must not be an act in the past 2. Consideration must move from the promisee 3. Consideration does not need to be adequate but sufficient 4. Performance of pre-existing duty is not consideration
Back
Card 4
Front
Consideration must not be past because past acts were done graciously
Back
Card 5
Front
Exceptions were past consideration is valid: The parties must have understood that the act was to be remunerated by payment or some other benefit in the future
Comments
No comments have yet been made