Consideration

Question 1

ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION (Courts will not inquiry into the value of the consideration provided in the context of the economic value of transaction)

Answer 1

Thomas v. Thomas
Chappel & Co Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd

Question 2

SUFFICIENCY OF CONSIDERATION (courts WILL ENQUIRY into the type aka sufficiency of consideration exchanged between two or more parties to a contract)

Answer 2

O’Neill v. Murphy (= prayers are not sufficient consideration)

Question 3

PUBLIC DUTY IMPOSED ON PARTY BY LAW

Answer 3

Collins v. Godefroy
England v. Davidson (= DID AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION since it went beyond and over public duty imposed on the party by law)
McKerring v. Minister for Agriculture

Question 4

FULFILLMENT OF EXISTING CONTRACTUAL DUTY (≠ consideration)

Answer 4

Stilk v. Myrick

Question 5

PART PERFORMANCE aka PINNEL’S CASE (Pinnel v. Cole)

Answer 5

Pinnel v. Cole
Williams v. Roffey Bros (opposite to stilk v. myrick)

Question 6

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL or EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

Answer 6

Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway

Question 7

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (1- Promise must be clear and unequivocal)

Answer 7

Golems v. Minister for Education

Question 8

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (2- Pre-existing contractual relationship as necessity)

Answer 8

Combe v. Combe

Question 9

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (3- Reliance on the promise made. Promisee must act to his DETRIMENT)

Answer 9

Central London Property Trust v. High Trees House

Question 10

PAST CONSIDERATION

Answer 10

Re McArdle
Lampleigh v. Bratgwait (act done at the promisor’s request, exception to the rule, attention!)

Question 11

CONSIDERATION MUST MOVE FROM PROMISEE

Answer 11

McEvoy v. Belfast Banking Corporation