Consideration Flashcards
What case is an example of consideration?
Currie v Misa
Currie v Misa
It was held that a valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.
What case is used as an example of consideration must not be past?
Re McArdle (1951)
Re McArdle (1951)
Mr McArdle died and left his house to his wife and after her death to their four children. While Mrs McArdle was alive, one son and his wife moved into the house. The daughter-in-law made several home improvements costing £488. After she had completed the improvements, all the children signed an agreement stating that the daughter-in-law would be reimbursed when Mrs McArdle died. On Mrs McArdle’s death, the children refused to reimburse her daughter-in-law. It was held that as the work was completed before the agreement, the work was past consideration, and the agreement was legally unenforceable.
What case is an example of the situation was one where payment would normally be expected?
Re Steward v Casey (Casey’s Patents) 1982)
Re Steward v Casey (Casey’s Patents) 1982)
An employer asked an employee to work on an invention. After the work was completed, the employee was promised a share of profits. It was held that he was entitled to his share as he had undertaken the work at the request of his employer and as it was an employee/employer relationship there was an implication that payment would be made.
What cases are examples of consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate?
White v Bluett (1853)
Thomas v Thomas (1842)
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
Stilik v Myrick (1809)
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925)
White v Bluett (1853)
A father cut a son out of his will. The father agreed to release the son from a debt in return for ceasing to ask about writing a new will. After the death of the father the son was asked for the debt who refused to pay stating that the agreement with the father. As the son had not provided any consideration the promise was not valid. He had not given anything by refusing to ask about a new will.
Thomas v Thomas (1842)
An owner of a house promised that the widow of the previous owner could occupy the house for life in return for £1 and keeping the house in good repair. Later the owner tried to recover the house from the widow. The promise to pay £1 and keep the house in good repair was sufficient consideration.
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
The claimant was a witness at a trial and was under a legal duty to attend and give evidence. As an incentive the defendant promised to pay the claimant some money if he attended. It was held the promise to pay was not legally binding. The claimant was already under a legal duty to attend court and he had not provided any new, fresh consideration.
Stilik v Myrick (1809)
When a ship was at a foreign port two seamen deserted. The captain promised the rest of the crew that the wages of the two deserters would be shared out between them if they sailed the ship back to London. The crew complied, but on reaching London the ship owners refused to share out the wages of the two deserters. It was held that in completing the voyage the crew were performing their existing contractual duties and had given no additional consideration in return for the promise to pay a share of the deserters’ wages.
Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
Often contrasted with Stilik v Myrick. The crew was so reduced that the crew members had to take on duties over and above their existing contractual duties. Therefore, in this case, the extra work was good consideration.
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925)
During a miners’ strike the pit owners wanted additional police officers to guard the mines. The owners agreed to pay the local authority for additional policing but later refused to do so, stating that the local authority had only caried out their existing public duty. It was held that the local authority had provided more police officers than the police considered necessary for maintaining law and order. Therefore, there was consideration and the promise to pay for the additional polcie officers was binding.
