Certainty, Intention and Consideration

Question 1

Walford v Miles

Answer 1

Contract to negotiate in good faith not accepted

Question 2

RTS Flexible Systems

Answer 2

Contract enforceable even though formalities were not met

Question 3

Tolaini Bros

Answer 3

Contract to negotiate not a contracr

Question 4

May & Butcher

Answer 4

Price undetermined -> no contract

Question 5

Percy Trentham

Answer 5

Terms left undecided = no contract

Question 6

Baird Textile Holdings v M&S

Answer 6

Implied contracts are not enforceable

Question 7

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 7

No ITCLG between husband and wife

Question 8

Jones v Padavatton

Answer 8

No ITCLR, domestic agreement between mother and daughter

Question 9

Merritt v Merritt

Answer 9

ITCLR where couple is separated

Question 10

Errington v Errington

Answer 10

ITCLR between son and father where agreement wad reasonably relied upon and induced expenditure

Question 11

Rose & Frank Co.

Answer 11

Presumption of ITCLR in commercial agreements rebutted when the contract indicated otherwise

Question 12

Blue v Ashley

Answer 12

Setting affects enforceability (pub banter)

Question 13

Chappell v Nestle

Answer 13

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

Question 14

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 14

Consideration doesn’t have to be anything grave (rent of £1)

Question 15

White v Bluett

Answer 15

Son promised not to do something he had no right to do anyways -> no consideration

Exception to Chappell v Nestle

Question 16

Eastwood v Kenyon

Answer 16

Failure to pay back tuitition past consideration

Question 17

Re. McArdle

Answer 17

Promise after performance -> past consideration

Question 18

Lampleigh

Answer 18

Promise to give money after performance is still good considerstion where promise to do the act comes before this

Question 19

Re Casey’s Patents

Answer 19

Where D expects to be rewarded for their work, past work = good consideration.

Question 20

Pao On

Answer 20

Act done on promisee’s request = good consideration (even though past)

Lampleigh principle followed

Question 21

Ward v Byham

Answer 21

Good consideration where more is done than is the duty to do.

Question 22

Williams v Roffey Bros

Answer 22

Williams not able to complete work in time -> Roffey pays more -> supported by consideration because of practical benefit

Question 23

Rock Advertising

Answer 23

Enforced Williams v Roffey Bros, rejected Foakes v Beer

Practical benefit = good consideration

Question 24

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 24

Controversial and old

Traditionally no need to give extra benefit when under existing duty