Co2: Consideration & Promissory Estoppel (cases) Flashcards
C - Currie v Misa (1875) (Exchequer)
Main point = definition of consideration as benefit to one party or detriment to the other
“valuable consideration […] may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other”
C - Chappell & Co v Nestle (1960) (HL)
Main point: consideration of trivial value (nominal consideration) is still valid consideration
Summary: C owned copyright to the tune, D offered records of the tune for fixed money price + 3 chocolate bar wrappers – pb = s8 Copyright Act 1956 required consideration to be money price to be applicable so that C would get royalties
=> HL : wrappers were part of the consideration bcs benefited Nestle (induced ppl to buy their chocolate) – since s8 operated only where consideration was money price, Nestle wasn’t within ambit of the section and so in breach of Chappell’s copyright
C - White v Bluett (1853) (Exchequer)
Main point: promise not to complain is not valid consideration bcs complaining not a right / smth one is entitled to, so not relinquishing a benefit
Summary: F promised S money in return for S ceasing to complain abt unequal treatement, S sued for breach of contract when F refused to pay
=> court held that no binding contract bcs promise not to complain not valid consideration (complaining not a right so S not relinquishing anything he was entitled to)
C - Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd (1994) (CA)
Main point: withdrawal of threat to be a nuisance + promise to proceed rapidly sufficient consideration bcs both benefit D
Summary: C trying to buy house from D, B also making offers => D kept on accepting & withdrawing whenever B made higher offer – C wrote to request that D stop considering other offers during 2w while they negotiated terms of sale, in exchange for which C would remove threat to disrupt sale to B and promised to proceed rapidly; D accepted request, then breached ag by considering B’s offer again, C sought to enforce ag
=> CA held that agreement was enforceable : clear offer by C and acceptance by D, no further matters to be ag in relation to that ag, and C’s promise to withdraw threat of disruption and proceed rapidly = valid consideration bcs benefited D
C - Ward v Byham (1956) (CA)
Main point: promise to perform an existing (legal) duty is valid consideration (as long as benefits promisee)
Summary : D promised C (mother of their illegitimate child) to pay her weekly sum in return for looking after child – under statute, C was legally bound to look after child, D was not – D stopped payments after C got married C sued for breach of contract
=> CA held that D lb for breach, promise to perform existing legal duty could be good consideration where it benefited the promisee
C - Williams v Williams (1957)
Main point: reiterated that promise to perform existing legal duty is good consideration
C - Glasbrook Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925) (HL)
Main point: pbc authority conferring benefit beyond what it is obligated to by statute = good consideration
Summary: pbc authority promised D to station 70 policemen in his colliery during miners’ strike, in return for payment – D refused to pay on basis that pbc authority under duty to provide ‘adequate policing’
=> HL held that pbc authority had gone beyond statutory duty & conferred a benefit on D which it was not obligated to = adequate consideration so D was bound in contract
C - Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2015) (SC) - Lord Toulson at [30]-[33]
Main point (here) : police owes the general public a duty to prevent violence and disorder / provide protection when necessary BUT following Glasbrook, lawful to charge for extra protection
C - Stilk v Myrick (1809) (HL)
Main point: promise to pay more for the performance of existing conrtactual duties not enforcable due to lack of consideration
Summary: some seamend deserted during voyage, and capitain couldn’t find any to replace them promised the remaining crew to divide wages of deserters among them if they performed their duties
=>HL held that promise not enforcable : mariners already contractually bound not to desert + to perform their own duties & the extra ones left by deserters => D gained nothing from what they ag to do in return for wage increase, bcs they were bound to do it anyway
/!\ No freestanding doctrine of eco duress at the time so consideration had to be used instead
C - Williams v Roffey Brothers (CA)
Main point: promise to pay more for performance of existing contractual oblº is binding where promise confers a ‘practical benefit’ or ‘obviates a disbenefit’
/!\ not overturning Stilk bcs there, D derived no practical benefit from paying extra wages
Summary: X contracted w/ D (RB) to refurbish block of flats, D subcontracted carpentry to C (W), who ran into fincancial difficulties bcs low contract price + delayed payments by D – D promised to pay more to C to ensure that work completed on time (to avoid triggering penalty clause in contract w/ X), later refused to pay C
=> CA held that D lb to make additional payements to C bcs had derived a ‘practical benefit’ (avoiding penalty clause) from promise to pay more so that C would finish on time
C - Shadwell v Shadwell (1860)
Main point: promising to do something which one is already bound to do is valid consideration (doesn’t have to be bound to other party to the contract, can be bound to someone else)
Summary: D (C’s uncle) promised C to pay him a yearly sum to help him start career as a barrister, until his income reached a certain level, in consideration for C marrying his fiancée X (marriage contracts were enforceable at the time so C alr bound to do that)
=> Court held that promise by C to marry X was good consideration, even though C already bound to do so
=> Erle CJ stretched words a bit to say that marriage = obj of interest to near relative so can be ‘benefit’ + material change of position for the parties so can be ‘detriment’ (even when marrying person he chose)
C - Pao On v Law Yiu Long (1980) (HL)
Main point: an act done prior to a promise can be valid consideration for that promise if the act has been done at the promisor’s request and the parties understood it was to be rewarded by the promisor (money or other benefit)
Lord Scarman’s 3 conditions for act done prior to a promise to be good consideration:
* The act was done at the promisor’s request
* The parties understood the act was to be rewarded
* The payment would have been enforceable had it been promised in advance
C - Foakes v Beer (1884) (HL)
Main point: promise to accept less than one is entitled to under a pre-existing contract is not binding for want of consideration
Summary: C obtained court judgement ag D for a certain sum + interest – C then agreed to forgo claim to interest if D paid £500 immediately and £150 twice a year until whole sum repaid – after whole sum repaid, C claimed the interest, D relied on C’s promise
=> HL held in favour of C: C’s promise was not enforcwable bcs D hadn’t provided any consideration
C - In Re Selectmove Ltd (1995) (CA)
Main point: CA following Foakes v Beer, refusing to follow its own decision in Williams v. Roffey Brothers that a promise to perform services which are already due may amount to good consideration if the promisee derives some practical benefit therefrom
= refusing to extend the principle to promise to pay existing debt (≠ svc)
Summary: S owed IRC tax payments, promised to pay by installments if IRC gave them more time – ag that promise to pay by installments = good consideration bcs IRC more likely to get their tax money than if insisted on immediate payment (S would go into liquidation)
=> CA held that promise to pay existing lb by installments not good consideration (applying Foakes v Beer, declining to follow Williams v Roffrey Brothers) + no acceptance could be inferred from IRC’s silence anyway
C - MWB v Rock Advertising Ltd (2016) (CA)
