Frustration

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Neddy1808
  • Created on: 21-05-18 23:30
Currie v Misa
“some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other” Definition of consideration
1 of 23
Thomas v Thomas (1842)
(promised widow could live in their house for £1 p.a. rent) Sufficiency of consideration
2 of 23
White v Bluett (1853)
(Father promised money if the son would stop moaning about his debt) Consideration must have some economic value
3 of 23
Chappel & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960)
(Chocolate wrappers for a record) Consideration must have some economic value
4 of 23
Hamer v Sidway (1881)
($5,000 promised if nephew refrained from drinking smoking and swearing until he was 21) Refraining from certain activities can provide valid consideration
5 of 23
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861)
(Father and father-in-law promised to pay plaintiff in light of his upcoming marriage) Consideration must move from the promisee)
6 of 23
Roscorla v Thomas (1842)
(defendants claimed that the horse was 'safe and sound from vice' after the sale of the horse) Past consideration is no consideration
7 of 23
Re McArdle (1951)
(promise of payment was made after renovation work was completed) Past consideration is no consideration
8 of 23
Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)
(Braithwaite found guilty of murder. Lampleigh obtained a pardon for him. Braithwaite then promised to and was made to pay £100 for his efforts) Requested performance exception
9 of 23
Re Caseys Patents (1892)
(It was held that the manager could enforce the patent owners promise of 1/3 of the shares) It is understood that payment will follow this performance
10 of 23
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
(payment promised to a witness in exchange for giving evidence that they were already required by law to give) Performance of an existing public duty is not sufficient consideration
11 of 23
Harris v Sheffield United FC (1987)
(Police officer provided extra security at a football match) Going beyond your existing public duty constitutes good consideration
12 of 23
Ward v Byham (1956)
(Father paid £1 per week to ensure the child was "well looked after and happy") Exceeding existing duty to look after the child therefore good consideration
13 of 23
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
(2 deserters, crew promised extra pay to sail ship home) Contractual duty not exceeded so no consideration
14 of 23
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
(So many deserters that the ship was dangerous to sail) Valid consideration as contractual duty was exceeded
15 of 23
Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)
Williams v. Roffey Bros (1991) (Defendants promised an additional £575 per flat to complete the work on time to avoid a late clause) Valid consideration as it confers a practical benefit
16 of 23
Re Selctmove Ltd (1995)
(part payment of a debt - instalments) Not enforceable as no consideration has been provided
17 of 23
Shadwell v Shadwell (1860)
(nephew already under contractual duty to marry fiancé) A contractual obligation to a third party constitutes good consideration
18 of 23
Scotson v Pegg (1861)
(promise to deliver coal) Performance of an existing contractual duty to a third party is good consideration
19 of 23
The Eurymedon (1975)
(Stevedores agreed to unload ship in exchange for exclusion from liability) The shippers receiving the benefit of being able to enforce a direct obligation against the stevedores so valid consideration has been provided.
20 of 23
Foakes and Beer (1884)
(part payment of a debt) Part payment of a debt is not good consideration
21 of 23
Pinnel's Case (1602)
"Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the judges that by no possibility a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum"
22 of 23
D&C Builders Ltd v Rees (1966)
(promised to accept £300 in full satisfaction) Promise to accept lesser amount is not enforceable as no consideration provided
23 of 23

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

(promised widow could live in their house for £1 p.a. rent) Sufficiency of consideration

Back

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

Card 3

Front

(Father promised money if the son would stop moaning about his debt) Consideration must have some economic value

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

(Chocolate wrappers for a record) Consideration must have some economic value

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

($5,000 promised if nephew refrained from drinking smoking and swearing until he was 21) Refraining from certain activities can provide valid consideration

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 resources »