Consideration Flashcards
Thomas v Thomas
1) consideration need not be adequate nor equal on each side but must be sufficient
Chappell v Nestle
1) consideration must have real value
Hamer v Sidway
1) real value includes giving something up
Roscorla v Thomas
2) past consideration is not good consideration, where a party promises to pay for something that has already been done. good cons must be a promise for the future, not the past
Stewart v Casey
2) pc exception: where a reward was in the minds of parties bc it was expected in a commercial situation
Lampleigh v Braithwaite
2) pc exception: where the act was requested by the other party
Stilk v Myrick
3) performance of an existing duty cannot be cons for a new contract
Hartley v Ponsonby
3) ed exception: where an ed has become more different or difficult
Williams v Roffey Bros
3) ed exception: if promising to pay more for an existing duty gives a ‘benefit’ or avoids a ‘detriment’ to the promiser
Collins v Godefroy
3) performing an existing PUBLIC duty, e.g policeman giving evidence at court, is not good consideration unless it goes beyond what is normally req
Shadwell v Shadwell
4) performing a duty owed to a 3rd party is good consideration
Pinnel’s Case
5) part payment of a debt in place of a whole debt is not good consideration, so the balance of the debt remains outstanding
Consideration
must be given by each party to make a contract binding, this is where a value is attached to a promise. A number of rules/exceptions have developed
CONS Checklist
- definition
1) equality TvT, CvN, HvS
2) past & except: reward/request RvT, SvC, LvB
3) existing duty: difficult/detriment, public SvM, HvP, WvRB, CvG
4) 3rd party SvS
5) debt PC
1) consideration need not be adequate nor equal on each side but must be sufficient
Thomas v Thomas
