Consideration

Question 1

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

Answer 1

Is the consideration sufficient?

Husband wanted wife to live in house if he died.

No consideration provided therefore unenforceable

However wife paid peppercorn rent of £1, which amounted to good consideration.

Question 2

Tweddle v Atkinson (1861)

Answer 2

Has consideration passed from promisor to promissee?

The partners father’s each agreed to pay a sum of money to the new husband after marriage.

One father died before making payment

Husband tried to sue, but the executor’s refused payment

Court held that the husband had provided no consideration for the deal, therefore the claim failed.

Question 3

Roscorla v Thomas (1842)

Answer 3

Past consideration = no consideration

Horse free from vice

Question 4

Re: McArdle

Answer 4

Past consideration = no consideration

Home improvements by daughter

Question 5

Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

Answer 5

Past Consideration - did the person ask for a service and did the promisee expect to be paid?

Kings Pardon

Question 6

Pao On v Lau You Long (1980)

Answer 6

Past Consideration - did the person ask for a service and did the promisee expect to be paid?

Question 7

Devani v Mills (2019)

Answer 7

Past Consideration - did the person ask for a service and did the promisee expect to be paid?

Supreme Court case

Estate agent commission

Question 8

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Answer 8

Is the person performing a pre-existing duty?

Sailor promised more wages when two crew members quit. held that he was performing existing duty so no consideration provided.

Question 9

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)

Answer 9

is the person DOING MORE than their pre-existing duty?

If so, able to discharge original contract and renegotiate new terms.

Half of crew quit making the journey more dangerous.

Question 10

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 1990

Answer 10

Has the promisor gained an Additional Benefit on a pre-existing duty?

Flats late for delivery
Penalty clause
Would have avoided penalty due to additional payment

Question 11

Pinnels Case (1602)

Answer 11

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the whole.

Question 12

Foakes v Beer (1884)

Answer 12

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the whole.

Question 13

Re: Selectmove (1995)

Answer 13

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the whole.

Payment of tax via instalments not held to be additional benefit

Question 14

MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (2016)

Answer 14

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for the whole.

Upheld:

• Pinnels case
• Foakes v Beer
• Re: Selectmove

Question 15

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947)

Answer 15

Promissory Estoppel

Person is estopped from going back on their promise to insisted on their strict legal rights, where a promise is made that is intended to be relied upon, it has been relied upon to their detriment, and it is inequitable to go back on that promise.

Question 16

Collier v P&M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd (2008)

Answer 16

Condition for promissory estoppel:

1. there must be a clear and unequivocal promise.

Question 17

P v P (1957) - New Zealand

Answer 17

It must be inequitable for the promisor to go back on their promise

Question 18

Coombe v Coombe (1951)

Answer 18

Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword

No new causes of action arise where none existed before

Question 19

Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co (1955)

Answer 19

Promissory Estoppel only suspends a parties future rights, rather than extinguish them.

Future rights can be reactivated by the giving of notice.