Consideration Flashcards
Give notes on consideration and include it’s definition
Consideration must be proven for a promise to be enforceable unless the agreement is made ‘ under seal’
Consideration is the act of forbearance of a party or a promise in return for the original promise.
Anything that thé promisor asks for is consideration
Distinguish between consideration and a condition/ motive using a case
Thomas v Thomas
Facts: a husband told his wife that she would get the house if she stays a widow after he dies but it wasn’t in the will. The executor of his will after he dies said that the wife can stay in the house on the basis that she remains unmarried and pays £1 every year.
Held: The wife staying unmarried was merely a condition. The wife didn’t say that she would remain a widow if the husband gave her the house but the husband was the one to say that if she remained unmarried she would get the house so this was a condition rather than consideration.
Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law- either to the plaintiffs detriment or the defendants benefit.
The consideration was the paying of the £1 every year
What are the principles of consideration
- Consideration must move from the promisee
- Consideration must be executory/ executed but not past.
- Consideration must be sufficient but it doesn’t need to be accurate.
Consideration must move from the promisor. Explain and name the cases .
The promise is not enforceable unless the promisee provides consideration. Consideration from a 3rd party is invalid.
1.Tweedle v Atkinson
2. MCcourby v Thomas
Consideration doesn’t need to move from the promisor
- the promisor doesn’t need to gain any benefit from the consideration for it to be valid.
1. Hammer v Sidway
Tweedle v Atkinson
Facts: 2 fathers promised to pay their children who were married to eachother money. When the father in law died the son sought money from the promise.
Held: the son was a 3rd party to the contract ( the contract was between the 2 fathers) and therefore he as a promisee couldn’t enforce it because he couldn’t provide consideration.
McCourby v Thomas
Facts: a land owner donated land to the defendant and expressed that the defendant must pay a set amount of money to the plaintiff. After the donor died the plaintiff sought for the money.
Held: the plaintiff was a 3rd party leader to the contract and could therefore not provide any consideration and therefore the contract wasn’t enforceable
Hammer v Sidway
Facts: uncle offered his nephew money if he stopped drinking, smoking and gambling. Nephew did this.
Held: the contract was enforceable cuz even tho the promisor didn’t gain any benefit the promisee acted to his detriment
Consideration must be executory, executed but not past. Explain each term and name the cases.
Executory- where the promisor promises something and the promisee counter promises- they both agree to perform the promises in the future and this is bilateral consideration.
Executive- the promisor makes promise in return for an act by the promisee, the act is considered as the consideration.
Past: if someone does something before the promise is made, and has no relation to a bargain then it is seen as gratuitous and not consideration.
- Roscorla v Thomas
- Morgan v Rainsford
- Provincial BOI v Donell
4 . R Mcardle
Roscorla v Thomas
Facts: the def sold a horse to the pl and after the sale the def said that the horse was free of vice and was of sound mind- that was untrue and the pl sued.
Held: the warranty was made after the sale and therefore the buying of the horse wasn’t subject to that promise and couldn’t be considered as consideration.
Morgan v Rainsford
Improvements made to property before a contract was made was past consideration and deemed insufficient.
Provincial BOI v O donell
Facts: bank provided a loan to the defendant and after made them sign a guarantee and tried to enforce it.
Held: the promise to fulfill guarantee did not have any consideration because the giving of the loans were prior to it. Couldn’t be enforced
R Mcardle
Facts: husband left house to kids upon wife’s death. Wife was living w one other child in the home. Wife made renovations and after children signed a document saying wife will be reimbursed after the property was distributed.
Held: Renovations were past consideration and was insufficient.
What are the exceptions to past consideration being invalid
Pao on v lau Long
Lampleigh v braithwaith
Pao on v Lau Long
The conditions for the satisfaction of this exception:
- The act was carried out at the promisor’s request. Connects the action to the promise.
- There was an understanding that the promisee would be remunerated.
- The promise to pay, had it been promised in advance, would have been enforceable.
Lampleigh v Braithwaith
Facts: D asked P to go to London to obtain a pardon for a crime he had committed. P did so incurring expenses as a result. D promised the plaintiff 100 for his endeavours. When he failed to pay this, the plaintiff sued him successfully for breach of contract.
Held :While the consideration for this promise (obtaining the pardon) was technically past, the court found that the promise was nonetheless enforceable.
As Braithwait had asked Lampleigh to obtain the pardon, and it was implicit that it would be paid for, Braithwait was now bound to fulfil his promise.
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
Name the cases.
- White v Bluett
- O’Neill v Murphy
3.Brett v JS - Chappel co. v Nestle
- O’Keefe v Ryanair
- Lipkin v Karnaple
- Ward v Bynham
White v Bluett
Facts: Father promised to pay off his son’s debts if he stopped being annoying, complaining and being boring.
Held: Not complaining was not seen as sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law. Consideration must be something of value.
O’Neill v Murphy
Facts: Builder promised to do building if the nuns made prayers for him because he was going through a hard time.
Held: The court did not see prayers as sufficient consideration. It’s clear that it may have been something of value to the defendant but it also must be sufficient in the eyes of the law.
Brett v JS
Held: Love and affection towards your mother is not sufficient consideration.
Chappel co. v Nestle
Facts: Plaintiff and defendant had an agreement where the plaintiff gave rights to their song in return for royalties of a promotion. The promotion was that people would buy nestle chocolate bars, return 3 wrappers and a certain amount of money and then receive a record from one of the plaintiff’s artists.
The plaintiff was not receiving royalties from the chocolate bars so sued. Nestle said that the chocolate wrappers were not part of the consideration because they had no value for them.
Held: They were part of the consideration because if they were invaluable then they wouldn’t have been part of the promotion and therefore it’s unreasonable to leave the money from the chocolate wrappers out of the royalty payment.
O’Keefe v Ryanair
Facts: Plaintiff bought a Ryanair ticket and was told that she was the millionth customer and would get free flights for life. She was asked to participate in a series of promotions. After a year Ryanair denied her the free flights on the basis that they said she did not provide any consideration because her buying the ticket was PAST consideration.
Held: Court said that buying the ticket wasn’t consideration. But Plaintiff gave up her anonymity and privacy to be in those advertisements to benefit Ryanair and therefore that was sufficient consideration.
Lipkin v Karnaple
Held: Casino chips did not constitute sufficient consideration as they didn’t have any economic value insofar as they were only props to betting and were the actual property of the casino.
Ward v Bynham
Facts: Plaintiff and defendant separated. The defendant was the father of the plaintiff’s child. At the time, it was an unmarried woman’s statutory obligation to look after her child. the defendant promised weekly allowances provided that the plaintiff keep the daughter ‘ well looked after and happy’. After the daughter moved in with the plaintiff the defendant refused the payments and claimed that there was no consideration to make the promise enforceable.
Held: The mother went above and beyond her statutory duty to look after her child by ensuring that she was well looked after and happy, this in turn benefitted the defendant because he was assured that his daughter was happy so, therefore, the promise was binding.
Consideration must not be illusionary or invented.
Name the Cases.
- Moroney v Revenue Commissioners.
- Aranale v Civil Engineering
