Consideration

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: deepa
  • Created on: 19-01-15 21:45
Misa v Currie
promisee and promisor must each receive a benefit and suffer a detriment
1 of 8
Thomas v Thomas
must be sufficient but not necessarily adequate (£1 per annum was sufficient)
2 of 8
Williams v Roffey
promise to pay the rest of the money was sufficient consideration
3 of 8
Re McArdle
consideration must not be in the past - promise to make another payment after consideration is not legally binding
4 of 8
Tweddle v Atkinson
consideration cannot move from a 3rd party
5 of 8
Stilk v Myrrick
existing contractual duty cannot be used as consideration for a new promise (e.g. payment)
6 of 8
Pinnel
part-payment is not sufficient even if agreed to
7 of 8
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
in unilateral contracts: executed consideration = a promise in exchange for an act
8 of 8

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

must be sufficient but not necessarily adequate (£1 per annum was sufficient)

Back

Thomas v Thomas

Card 3

Front

promise to pay the rest of the money was sufficient consideration

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

consideration must not be in the past - promise to make another payment after consideration is not legally binding

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

consideration cannot move from a 3rd party

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract Law resources »