"may consist of some right, interest, or benefit accruing to one party or some detriment, loss, obligation undertaken by the other" Currie v Misa [1875]
1 of 13
"A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses"
Chappell v Nestlé [1960] per Lord Somerwell
2 of 13
Giving up rights you had no rights to is not good consideration
White v Bluett [1852]
3 of 13
Past consideration is not good consideration
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] PC case
4 of 13
Performance of a pre-existing contractual duty is not good consideration
Stilk v Myrick [1809] (Roffey Bros Exception)
5 of 13
Acceptance of Part Payment is not good consideration
Foakes v Beer [1884]
6 of 13
Giving up a legal right to sue is good consideration
Pitt v PHH Asset Management [1993]
7 of 13
Performance of a contractual obligation owed to a TP is a good consideration
Scotson v Pegg [1861]
8 of 13
Courts only enforce bargains not promises
Coombe v Coombe [1951]
9 of 13
Consideration must move from promisee
Tweddle v Atkinson [1861]
10 of 13
Promissory Estoppel - 4 Requirements
High Trees House [1947] 1. Promisor must intend to be binding 2. He must intend to act on it 3. Must be acted upon 4. Promisor must then try to act inconsistently with it
11 of 13
Promissory Estoppel is suspensory
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. v Tungsten [1955]
12 of 13
PE must have clear and unequivocal promise
Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa [1972]
13 of 13
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
"A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses"
Back
Chappell v Nestlé [1960] per Lord Somerwell
Card 3
Front
Giving up rights you had no rights to is not good consideration
Back
Card 4
Front
Past consideration is not good consideration
Back
Card 5
Front
Performance of a pre-existing contractual duty is not good consideration
Comments
No comments have yet been made