Consideration

Question 1

Defining Consideration

Answer 1

• Dunlop v Selfridge = - “An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of another is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.”
• Thomas V Thomas = “Consideration means something which is of some value in the eye of the law, moving from the Plaintiff; it may be some detriment to P or some benefit to D, but at all events it must be moving from the Plaintiff.”
• element of value between 2 parties in contract
• bi-lateral - from both sides
• Unilateral - only by promisee
• no consideration = numdum pactum (Naked/gratuitous promise)

Question 2

Consideration rules

Answer 2

1 - must move form promisee
2 - need not be adequate but must be sufficient
3 - must not be past
4 - must be over and above existing obligation
5 - must be possible and legal

Question 3

1 - Consideration must move from he promisee

Answer 3

• unilateral contract - Carlill v Carbolic - Mirs Carlill suffered detriment by sing product as directed anf ad was financially beneficial to Carbolic.
• Price v Easton - E (D) promised to pay Price to do some building work -> couldn’t prove consideration from Price.
• Tweddle v Atkinson - consideration must move from the promisee.

Question 4

2 - Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient

Answer 4

• sufficient = something of value int he eyes of the law
• White v bluest - father to forgive son’s debt if stopped complaining -> going up rights can be legally sufficient benefit but if had no right to do int he first place it cannot.
• Chappel & Co. v Nestle - wrappers part of consideration even though no obvious economic value in themselves.
• Thomas v Thomas - wife paying £1 rent for husbands house after his death , although below commercial value, was valid consideration.

Question 5

4 - Consideration must not be past

Answer 5

• must be in return for promise, cant be before
• executed = performed after the promise
• Eastwood v Kenyon - C’s action (taking loan) were before the promise so past consideration.
• Re McArdle - agreement unenforceable as improvement had already been made by the time the promise was given.
• Lampleigh v Braithwaite - Past consideration at promisor’s request is valid

Question 6

Consideration must be over and above existing obligation

Answer 6

• performance of existing public duty cannot in itself be good consideration (Collins v Godefroy)
• Performance of an existing contractual duty not considered good for a separate promise outside original contract (Still v Myrick)
• performance of contractual duty owed to 3rd party can amount to good consideration (Scotson v Pegg)

Question 7

Consideration must be legal and possible

Answer 7

• possible = to do something physically or scientifically impossible doesn’t consitutue good consideration
• legal - (ex turpi causa non oritur action applies= no action arises form a bad cause) - (Pearce v Brooks)