Consideration

Question 1

What is consideration?

Answer 1

The idea that something must be exchanged so both parties must give/promise something. A contract is a bargain not a gift which is why we need consideration.

Question 2

Executory consideration

Answer 2

Exchange of promises that something will be done/ given

Question 3

Executed consideration

Answer 3

Something has been exchanged at the time.

Question 4

Currie v Misa

Answer 4

Consideration must “consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.

Question 5

Consideration must move from the promisee

Answer 5

Tweddle v Atkinson

Question 6

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 6

Held that the groom had no consideration and so could not sue for the money as he was not part of the contract.

Question 7

Consideration must be sufficient but does not need to be adequate

Answer 7

‘Adequate’ means of equal value which isn’t necessary due to the freedom of contract principle.
e.g. Thomas v Thomas - renting a house for £1
- Chappel v Nestle

Question 8

Chappel v Nestle

Answer 8

Wrappers did form part of consideration as the object increased the sales so Chappel was granted an injunction.

Question 9

Emotional promises are not sufficient

Answer 9

• White v Bluett
• Ward v Bytham

Question 10

White v Bluett

Answer 10

Consideration not sufficient as the promise made between son and father had “no value”

Question 11

Ward v Bytham

Answer 11

A mothers exchange of love and happiness was sufficient and has value.

Question 12

Past consideration is not sufficient

Answer 12

Anything which has already been done before the other party promises anything is not consideration and there has been no exchange.

Question 13

Re McArdle

Answer 13

Held that a promise from siblings made after work was done meant there was no consideration.

Question 14

There may still be sufficient consideration if there was an implied promise to pay at the time the other party carried out their part

Answer 14

Lampleigh v Braithwait

Question 15

Lampleigh v Braithwait

Answer 15

Implied promise that Braithwait would pay Lampleigh for his travel to Scotland so consideration had been exchanged.

Question 16

Performing an existing duty is also not sufficient consideration in a new contract

Answer 16

Stilk v Myrick

Question 17

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 17

Sailors already had a duty to sail the ship home as it was their job, so no consideration.

Question 18

Exception - Performing an existing duty will be sufficient consideration if something extra is done in return for the new payment

Answer 18

• Hartley v Ponsonby
• Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan
• Williams v Roffey (modernised court)

Question 19

Hartley v Ponsonby

Answer 19

There was extra work for a crew on a ship as well as extra danger than originally agreed so good consideration.

Question 20

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan

Answer 20

Owner of a mine had police protection on it which was above and beyond the normal so good consideration.

Question 21

Williams v Roffey

Answer 21

Existing duty can be good consideration even when nothing extra is added as long as it benefits the other side.

Question 22

There can be sufficient consideration if the existing contractual duty was owed to a 3rd party.

Answer 22

• Shadwell v Shadwell

Question 23

Shadwell v Shadwell

Answer 23

Performance of the marriage was consideration so the Nephew could sue for the remaining payments