Consideration

Question 1

what case holds the defintion for consideration

Answer 1

LORD DUNEDIN in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & co 1915.
‘ the price for a promsie’

• a promise on their own are generally not enforceable.

Question 2

Which case states that consideration doesnt have to benefit the promisor, only matters that it was requested by them.

Answer 2

Currie v Misa 1875

Question 3

what case demonstrates that if a request from a promisor is not for the promisee to actually do or not to do something, there will be no consideration, it will only be a gift.

Answer 3

Re Cory 1912

Question 4

Is past consideration valid. is there any exceptions

Answer 4

No
- wasn’t given in exchange for specific promise.
- Re McArdle 1951

EXCEPTION
- lampleigh v Braithwaite 1615
- past consideration is valid if it was requested by the promisor.

Question 5

what does Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980 demonstrate

Answer 5

• guidelines for previous requests being valid as past consideration
  1. must be at the request of promsior
  2. Understanding that there would be some sort of payment in return for act
  3. Promise was a kind that would be legally enforceable

Question 6

How much value is needed for consideration

Answer 6

Consideration has to be of some value recognised by the law.
[consideration must be sufficient and need not be adaquate]- Mountford v Scott 1975

Question 7

What is nominal consideration

Answer 7

Used to describe a very small amount that is symbolic or a ‘token gesture’
(All that’s needed )

Question 8

What does Chappel v Nestle 1960 represent

Answer 8

Consideration need not have economic value

Question 9

What case defined that love and affection was not valid consideration

Answer 9

Harford and Gardiners case 1587

Question 10

Is the performance of an existing legal duty sufficient enough

Answer 10

Traditional rule
- not sufficient enough (Collins v godfroy 1831)

Exceptions
- performance beyond the existing legal duty is sufficient ( Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan 1925)

Question 11

What are the limits on the traditional rule regarding the insufficiency of performing existing legal duties.

Answer 11

-judges will find an existing legal duty to find consideration to prevent unfair results.
- Ward v Byham 1956

Question 12

Is the performance of an existing contractual duty sufficient enough?

Answer 12

Traditional rule
- not sufficient
- Stilk v Myrick 1809

Exceptions
- doing more than their contractual duty is sufficient- Hartley V Ponsonby 1857

Question 13

Is the performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party sufficient?

Answer 13

Traditional rule
- it is sufficient enough
- Shadwell v Shadwell 1860

Question 14

What does Williams v Roffey 1990 show?

Answer 14

A promise to perform an existing contractual duty is not consideration for a variation promise. Unless he gives a practical benefit.
- glide well j confided it to be for avoiding a disbenefit.
- Williams promise to perform his contractual duty have Roffey a practical benefit
- PROMISE TO DO MORE

Question 15

What is a practical benefit

Answer 15

A benefit one party will gain from the performance of another parties duties.
- also included avoiding disbenefit
- practical benefit is usually found by looking at the reasons for making a promise

Question 16

Is a promise to accept less valid

Answer 16

Park payment of debt is not sufficient - the promise to accept less than she was owed was not enforceable without consideration.
- Foakes v beer 1884
UNLESS- it is accompanied by additional goods or is made in a different place, or earlier than the due date and at the creditors request.- Pinnels case

Question 17

What is the significance of selectmove 1995?

Answer 17

It confirmed the continued application of the traditional rule form Foakes v Beer.
- both these cases apply to promised to accept less (part payment)

Question 18

What is promissory estoppel

Answer 18

Principle that operates a possible way around the strict consideration requirement from cases such as a Foakes v Beer
- HIGH TREES CASE 1947
- prevents a promise going back on a promise
- developed by the equitable jurisdiction

Question 19

What was the High Trees case

Answer 19

• promisory estoppel applied when…
  1. Promise was intended to be binding
  2. Promisor knew the promise would be after on
  3. Promisee in promise

Question 20

What are the 4 limitations on Promissory estoppel

Answer 20

1. Promissory estoppel was only available as a defence.- Combe v Combe 1951
2. Must be inequitable for thr promisor to go back on promise- D&C Builders v Rees 1966
3. There must be a clear promise- Woodhouse A.C Israel Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Marketing 1972
4. This promise must have altered their position in reliance on promise- WJ Alan v El Nasr export 1972
5. Promise must be made with intention to be legally binding and promisor must know the promise will be acted upon - High Trees 1947